For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.cc website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

 
Image of US servicemen wiring men with blood on their necks.

The servicemen are obviously enjoying the prospect of using electric shock treatment as torture on the men.

Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth.

Sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect.

George Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture.

Photo: www.uruknet.info/

If torture is good,
and black is white
then day is night
and wrong is right
Are these the truths
for which you fight?
If not, then
pass it on.

Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 19 2006
The Bush administration's desperation to legitimize and legislate torture in the face of revolt from Congress, the Senate and even Colin Powell, is an attempt to rescue the need to have a constant supply of phony intelligence obtained from torture to justify the war on terror - while the real horror of how the administration advocates sexually mutilating children under the same legal definition remains hidden from the U.S. public.
A large portion of Americans still support the use of 'rendition' and 'pressure' because they are told that the information obtained from such methods protects them from terrorists.
Horror show
Not only is that information crude, unreliable and often misleading — but the suffering inflicted on the victims is a horror show in comparison to the milquetoast edited version presented via the media.
The philosophy of the Bush administration's approach to torture is encapsulated by John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor.
During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Click here for the audio.
Moral decay of everything that used to be America.
By the very framework that has been established within this context, Bush's Rose Garden speech this past Friday was a tacit attempt to sell the justification of crushing a child's genitals in the name of the war on terror.
No you haven't entered the twilight zone, you are witnessing the absolute sacking and moral decay of everything that used to be America.
uruknet.info
اوروكنت.إنفو
informazione dal medio oriente
information from middle east
المعلومات من الشرق الأوسط
UK suspects in new claims of torture
at Guantanamo
Robert Verkaik, Independent
21 September 2006 The extent of the torture and abuse that British residents held at Guantanamo Bay claim to have suffered is revealed for the first time in a series of recently declassified interviews between the detainees and their human rights lawyers.
Documents submitted to the American courts allege that one of the detainees was strapped to a chair by prison guards and beaten and tortured to the point of death.
Other British suspects are still being held in solitary confinement, four years after their capture, where they are subjected to extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation and the confiscation of the most basic necessities, including lavatory paper and blankets.
None has been charged with any crime.
Some of the most serious allegations of torture concern the treatment of Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national who until his arrest four years ago had been living in London with his wife and four children.
When he screamed, they cut his airway, put a mask so he could not cry out
In June this year, Mr Aamer claims he was badly beaten and tortured because he failed to provide a retina scan and fingerprints to the camp authorities.   He says he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs.
The habeas corpus motion filed in the court of the District of Columbia states: "The MPs [military police] inflicted so much pain, Mr Aamer said he thought he was going to die.   The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears.   They choked him.   They bent his nose so hard he thought it would break.
"They pinched his thighs and feet constantly.   They gouged his eyes.   They held his eyes open and shined a Maglite [torch] in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat.   They bent his fingers until he screamed.   When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out."
Mr Aamer, who had been resident in Britain since 1996, was used as key negotiator on behalf of the prisoners during recent hunger strikes.
But when a settlement between the prisoners and the guards broke down last year he was sent to solitary confinement.   This month he was visited by his lawyer from the human rights charity Reprieve.   Mr Aamer told the lawyer that he had not seen the sun for 79 days and had had no meaningful contact with the outside world.
In a harrowing account of his torture he said: "At any moment, they can strip you naked.   They will put your head in the toilet in the name of security.   It is all about humiliation.   They are trying to break me."
Bisher al-Rawi, another British resident captured by the Americans in Gambia after alleged collusion between the CIA and MI5 officers, is also being held in solitary confinement at another detention centre known as Camp V.
Mr al-Rawi has stopped co-operating with his interrogators because they are still seeking answers to the same questions they were asking when he was first arrested in 2002.
His resistance has cost him the few privileges he had and led to his interrogators using torture lasting for weeks.   The most common form of torture he has been forced to endure is the use of extreme temperatures in the cells.   During the day the guards let the temperatures reach 100 degrees and in the night take away his sheet and use the air conditioning system to create freezing conditions
Zachary Katznelson, the Reprieve lawyer who interviewed the men in Guantanamo, said the torture had been so severe that Mr Al Rawi had suffered wheezing and loss of consciousness.
The evidence relating to Mr al-Rawi is to be used to support an appeal already lodged at the High Court in London.   Two other British residents, Omar Deghayes and Ahmed Errachidi, are also being held in Camp V.
Ahmed Belbacha and Abdennour Sameur are in Camp II.   Jamil al-Banna is in Camp IV, the lowest security rated part of the prison.   An eighth man, Binyam Mohamed, is due to appear before a military commission.   All the men remain defiant and protest their innocence.
Reprieve, the British based human rights charity representing the men, says their detention is a gross breach of international law and an infringement of the Geneva Conventions.
Problem lies not with TORTURE, but with the LAW
Bush on torture — click here
(sorry — the elite who control the media removed it)
If you've ever wondered why the world is so mad, you need only look at THE LAW.
This video does not show torture.
It shows a Bush press conference segment,
and after,
the implications that lead from it.
Bush insists the problem lies not with TORTURE, but with the LAWS interpreting it.
He wants to justify a crime against humanity by making it LEGAL.
Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect
Torture 'expert'

Yoo

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
They are actually arguing for the legalization of sadistic, serial killer style torture and sexual molestation of children.
The same administration that labels its critics 'fascists' is pursuing a doctrine that makes Dr. Josef Mengele look like Ronald McDonald in comparison.
The official US Army report listed all the abuses committed at the Abu Ghraib prison.
These methods are standard use in the 'Copper Green' worldwide torture program.
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq.   A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session.   But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story.   He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.”   The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bullshit anyone.”
The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan.   Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems.   For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them.   On October 7th, the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader.   A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike.   By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach.   Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness.   One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.”   In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles.   There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command.
Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror.   A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon.   The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps.   America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber.  All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.
“Rumsfeld’s goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target — a standup group to hit quickly,” a former high-level intelligence official told me.   “He got all the agencies together—the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.—to get pre-approval in place.   Just say the code word and go.”   The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser.   President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.

Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect
Torture 'expert'

Yoo

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; [Rape]
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees (after detainees were beaten to death).
Spun as the actions of "a few bad apples," the Abu Ghraib torture program was sanctioned from the very top.
Janis Karpinski was scapegoated as being party to the torture when she was in reality trying to put a stop to it. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal she has been blowing the whistle on who directed the torture program and how it continues to this day. During an interview on the Alex Jones Show, Karpinski stated,
"There is overwhelming proof that torture is going on, that it has been directed and is likely continuing, even to this day. I don't want to believe it is but the statements from the people just returning from the theater give every indication that in fact it is, they still don't know where to draw the line." The General said.







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former intelligence official told me.   They created code words, and recruited, after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from America’s élite forces—Navy seals, the Army’s Delta Force, and the C.I.A.’s paramilitary experts.   They also asked some basic questions: “Do the people working the problem have to use aliases?   Yes.   Do we need dead drops for the mail?   Yes.   No traceability and no budget.   And some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress.”
In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too important for transfer to the military’s facilities at Guantánamo, Cuba.   They carried out instant interrogations—using force if necessary—at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world.   The intelligence would be relayed to the sap command center in the Pentagon in real time, and sifted for those pieces of information critical to the “white,” or overt, world.
Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said.   The goal was to keep the operation protected.   “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said.   “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must.   Do what you want.’ ”
One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003.   The office was new; it was created as part of Rumsfeld’s reorganization of the Pentagon.   Cambone was unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the Pentagon, essentially because he had little experience in running intelligence programs, though in 1998 he had served as staff director for a committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned of an emerging ballistic-missile threat to the United States.   He was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld.   “Remember Henry II—‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ ” the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week.   “Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much.”
Cambone was a strong advocate for war against Iraq.   He shared Rumsfeld’s disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at the C.I.A.’s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone’s military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, was also controversial.   Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he equated the Muslim world with Satan.
Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror.   Those programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct, were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in counter-intelligence programs.   Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid subsequently left the Pentagon.   Asked for comment on this story, a Pentagon spokesman said, “I will not discuss any covert programs; however, Dr. Cambone did not assume his position as the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence until March 7, 2003, and had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding interrogation procedures in Iraq or anywhere else.”
In mid-2003, the special-access program was regarded in the Pentagon as one of the success stories of the war on terror.   “It was an active program,” the former intelligence official told me.   “It’s been the most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat.   If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him.   And we can remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United States—and do so without visibility.”   Some of its methods were troubling and could not bear close scrutiny, however.
By then, the war in Iraq had begun.   The sap was involved in some assignments in Iraq, the former official said.   C.I.A. and other American Special Forces operatives secretly teamed up to hunt for Saddam Hussein and—without success—for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.   But they weren’t able to stop the evolving insurgency.

Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect
Bush

Why is the Bush administration so feverish to gut the Geneva conventions and legislate torture?

It is common knowledge that evidence obtained from torture is completely unreliable and if anything only muddies the waters of intelligence.

The Neo-Con architects of the war on terror could not care less whether the information obtained from torture is accurate or not, the agenda is to artificially manufacture the myth that there are numerous Al-Qaeda cells dotted around the world wanting to attack America.

Yoo

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Karpinski identified the masterminds of the torture policy as occupying the highest rungs of the Bush administration.
Then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well'
"The orders came right from the top, filtered down from the secretary of defense, with the endorsement of the President, the Vice President, whatever advisors are surrounding them, filtered down through the Commanders in the field, these practices were not only endorsed, but were in use at Guantanamo bay and in locations in Afghanistan.   And when General Miller visited Iraq he brought those techniques with him.   And then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well' at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq as well."
Why is the Bush administration so feverish to gut the Geneva conventions and legislate torture?
Artificially manufacture the myth
It is common knowledge that evidence obtained from torture is completely unreliable and if anything only muddies the waters of intelligence.   The Neo-Con architects of the war on terror could not care less whether the information obtained from torture is accurate or not, the agenda is to artificially manufacture the myth that there are numerous Al-Qaeda cells dotted around the world wanting to attack America.
This process is clearly evident in Uzbekistan, where racist dictator Islam Karimov, the man who enjoys boiling people alive, plays ball in helping Bush and Blair maintain the Al-Qaeda myth by providing a steady supply of tortured Muslims who would admit to being Osama Bin Laden's rent boy just to have the cattle prod removed.
In return for financial kickbacks
Karimov, Bush and Blair have set-up a nice little back scratching society and it works like this — Karimov has his brownshirts snatch innocent Muslims off the streets, tortures them until they "confess" to being Al-Qaeda members, and then in return for financial kickbacks, hands the phony confessions to the CIA and British intelligence, who use them as propaganda to argue the threat of the Al-Qaeda menace.   In addition, the manufacturing of an artificial 'Al-Qaeda threat' enables Karimov to propagandize his own population into supporting his savagery through fear.
The fact that the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told the Blair government directly that false confessions were being obtained through violent torture, didn't concern MI6 or the CIA, who ordered the program to continue.







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
I n the first months after the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld and his aides still had a limited view of the insurgency, seeing it as little more than the work of Baathist “dead-enders,” criminal gangs, and foreign terrorists who were Al Qaeda followers.   The Administration measured its success in the war by how many of those on its list of the fifty-five most wanted members of the old regime—reproduced on playing cards—had been captured.   Then, in August, 2003, terror bombings in Baghdad hit the Jordanian Embassy, killing nineteen people, and the United Nations headquarters, killing twenty-three people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N. mission.   On August 25th, less than a week after the U.N. bombing, Rumsfeld acknowledged, in a talk before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that “the dead-enders are still with us.”   He went on, “There are some today who are surprised that there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, and they suggest that this represents some sort of failure on the part of the Coalition.   But this is not the case.”   Rumsfeld compared the insurgents with those true believers who “fought on during and after the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany.”   A few weeks later—and five months after the fall of Baghdad—the Defense Secretary declared,  “It is, in my view, better to be dealing with terrorists in Iraq than in the United States.”
Inside the Pentagon, there was a growing realization that the war was going badly.   The increasingly beleaguered and baffled Army leadership was telling reporters that the insurgents consisted of five thousand Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein.   “When you understand that they’re organized in a cellular structure,” General John Abizaid, the head of the Central Command, declared, “that . . . they have access to a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you’ll understand how dangerous they are.”
The American military and intelligence communities were having little success in penetrating the insurgency.   One internal report prepared for the U.S. military, made available to me, concluded that the insurgents’ “strategic and operational intelligence has proven to be quite good.”   According to the study:
Their ability to attack convoys, other vulnerable targets and particular individuals has been the result of painstaking surveillance and reconnaissance.   Inside information has been passed on to insurgent cells about convoy/troop movements and daily habits of Iraqis working with coalition from within the Iraqi security services, primarily the Iraqi Police force which is rife with sympathy for the insurgents, Iraqi ministries and from within pro-insurgent individuals working with the CPA’s so-called Green Zone.
Disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq has been key cause of insurgency
The study concluded, “Politically, the U.S. has failed to date.   Insurgencies can be fixed or ameliorated by dealing with what caused them in the first place.   The disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq has been the key cause of the insurgency.   There is no legitimate government, and it behooves the Coalition Provisional Authority to absorb the sad but unvarnished fact that most Iraqis do not see the Governing Council”—the Iraqi body appointed by the C.P.A.—“as the legitimate authority.   Indeed, they know that the true power is the CPA.”
By the fall, a military analyst told me, the extent of the Pentagon’s political and military misjudgments was clear.   Donald Rumsfeld’s “dead-enders” now included not only Baathists but many marginal figures as well—thugs and criminals who were among the tens of thousands of prisoners freed the previous fall by Saddam as part of a prewar general amnesty.   Their desperation was not driving the insurgency; it simply made them easy recruits for those who were.   The analyst said, “We’d killed and captured guys who had been given two or three hundred dollars to ‘pray and spray’ ”—that is, shoot randomly and hope for the best.   “They weren’t really insurgents but down-and-outers who were paid by wealthy individuals sympathetic to the insurgency.”   In many cases, the paymasters were Sunnis who had been members of the Baath Party.   The analyst said that the insurgents “spent three or four months figuring out how we operated and developing their own countermeasures.   If that meant putting up a hapless guy to go and attack a convoy and see how the American troops responded, they’d do it.”   Then, the analyst said, “the clever ones began to get in on the action.”
By contrast, according to the military report, the American and Coalition forces knew little about the insurgency: “Human intelligence is poor or lacking . . . due to the dearth of competence and expertise. . . . The intelligence effort is not coordinated since either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely manner.”   The success of the war was at risk; something had to be done to change the dynamic.

Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect
Bush

Why is the Bush administration so feverish to gut the Geneva conventions and legislate torture?

It is common knowledge that evidence obtained from torture is completely unreliable and if anything only muddies the waters of intelligence.

The Neo-Con architects of the war on terror could not care less whether the information obtained from torture is accurate or not, the agenda is to artificially manufacture the myth that there are numerous Al-Qaeda cells dotted around the world wanting to attack America.

Yoo

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The hallmark of the worldwide detainee and torture camps is defined by repeated examples whereby proven top Al-Qaeda members are protected or released while completely innocent individuals are imprisoned for no reason and tortured.
The Washington Post reported:
During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape.   He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction.
Tabarak was captured and taken to the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was classified as such a high-value prisoner that the Pentagon repeatedly denied requests by the International Committee of the Red Cross to see him.   Then, after spending almost three years at the base, he was suddenly released.
The article describes how Tabarak was a proven loyal and unceasing Al-Qaeda member with an unparalleled affinity for Osama bin Laden.
Compare this to the 70-90% of Iraqis who are arrested, hooded, and thrown into prison camps for the crime of not showing their papers at checkpoints.
This website has repeatedly highlighted examples of where known terrorists, even in some cases individuals who were in the throes of carrying out terrorist attacks, are ordered to be released by the US government.
And yet Pakistani gangsters admitted to rounding up innocent people in street sweeps and selling them to the US government as terrorists for anything up to $25,000.   These people are now at Guantanamo Bay.
Khaled Masri was abducted off the streets of Germany by the CIA for being a suspected terrorist, the case against him later collapsed and the U.S. government graciously apologized for ruining his life.
In a similar recent case, Ottawa software engineer Maher Arar, who holds Canadian and Syrian nationality, was arrested for terrorist ties and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.   An official inquiry concluded that Arar was completely innocent.







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents.   A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures.   The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison.   The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”
“Gitmoize”
Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation.   He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time.   (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)
Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib.   The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan.   The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.
Intelligence is flowing into the white world
“They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me.   “No names.   Nothing that they could hang their hat on.   Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command.   I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot.   So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer.   And it’s working.   We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world.   We’re getting good stuff.   But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”
Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence official told me: not only would he bring the sap’s rules into the prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap’s auspices.   “So here are fundamentally good soldiers—military-intelligence guys—being told that no rules apply,” the former official, who has extensive knowledge of the special-access programs, added.   “And, as far as they’re concerned, this is a covert operation, and it’s to be kept within Defense Department channels.”
Hard-core special operatives
The military-police prison guards, the former official said, included “recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.”   He was referring to members of the 372nd Military Police Company.   Seven members of the company are now facing charges for their role in the abuse at Abu Ghraib.   “How are these guys from Cumberland going to know anything?   The Army Reserve doesn’t know what it’s doing.”
Who was in charge of Abu Ghraib—whether military police or military intelligence—was no longer the only question that mattered.   Hard-core special operatives, some of them with aliases, were working in the prison.   The military police assigned to guard the prisoners wore uniforms, but many others—military intelligence officers, contract interpreters, C.I.A. officers, and the men from the special-access program—wore civilian clothes.   It was not clear who was who, even to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, then the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and the officer ostensibly in charge.   “I thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were some civilians that I didn’t know,” Karpinski told me.   “I called them the disappearing ghosts.   I’d seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib and then I’d see them months later.   They were nice—they’d always call out to me and say, ‘Hey, remember me?   How are you doing?’ ” The mysterious civilians, she said, were “always bringing in somebody for interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out.”   Karpinski added that she had no idea who was operating in her prison system.   (General Taguba found that Karpinski’s leadership failures contributed to the abuses.)
Fear that situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to exposure of the secret sap
By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough.   “They said, ‘No way.   We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan—pre-approved for operations against high-value terrorist targets—and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets’ ”—the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails.   “The C.I.A.’s legal people objected,” and the agency ended its sap involvement in Abu Ghraib, the former official said.
The C.I.A.’s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence community.   There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to the exposure of the secret sap, and thereby bring an end to what had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation.   “This was stupidity,” a government consultant told me.   “You’re taking a program that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional war zone.   Sooner or later, the commandos would bump into the legal and moral procedures of a conventional war with an Army of a hundred and thirty-five thousand soldiers.”
As soon as you enlarge the secret program you lose control
The former senior intelligence official blamed hubris for the Abu Ghraib disaster.   “There’s nothing more exhilarating for a pissant Pentagon civilian than dealing with an important national security issue without dealing with military planners, who are always worried about risk,” he told me.   “What could be more boring than needing the cooperation of logistical planners?”   The only difficulty, the former official added, is that, “as soon as you enlarge the secret program beyond the oversight capability of experienced people, you lose control.   We’ve never had a case where a special-access program went sour—and this goes back to the Cold War.”
In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the blame.   “The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone,” he said.   “This is Cambone’s deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program.”   When it came to the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the details to Cambone.   Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable, the consultant added, “but he’s responsible for the checks and balances.   The issue is that, since 9/11, we’ve changed the rules on how we deal with terrorism, and created conditions where the ends justify the means.”

Bush Desperate To Legislate Mengele Style Torture
Phony intelligence from false confessions needed to maintain Al-Qaeda myth, sexual mutilation of children advocated by White House legal architect
Bush
Why is the Bush administration so feverish to gut the Geneva conventions and legislate torture?
It is common knowledge that evidence obtained from torture is completely unreliable and if anything only muddies the waters of intelligence.
The Neo-Con architects of the war on terror could not care less whether the information obtained from torture is accurate or not, the agenda is to artificially manufacture the myth that there are numerous Al-Qaeda cells dotted around the world wanting to attack America.
Cassel:  If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo:  No treaty.
Cassel:  Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo:  I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Only nine alleged terrorists have been brought to trial by the US government and none have been convicted, save the mental retard Zacarias Moussaoui who was tortured into whistling whatever tune his handlers demanded.
In many cases, alleged terrorists like Iyman Faris, the so-called Brooklyn Bridge bomber, turn out to be confidants of the US government. Faris was an FBI informant.
The so-called mastermind of the 7/7 London bombing, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was an MI6 informant whom British intelligence had repeatedly protected in the years before the attack in the face of attempts by intelligence agencies of other nations to arrest him.
The policy of the highest echelons of the American and British establishment is to torture the innocent and release the guilty.
The elite needs to maintain the facade that terrorist cells are everywhere and that only their smothering 'protection' will keep us safe. And yet time and time again the real terrorists are protected and given safe passage by the military-industrial complex handlers.
Though the torture program is being sold to the American people as a necessity in the "war of civilizations," it is in actual fact a trial balloon for the incarceration of political dissidents during a time of manufactured national emergency such as a biological terror attack or race riots.
It was announced earlier this year that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."
Discussions of federal concentration camps is no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, it is mainstream news.
Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in an internment facility forever without trial.
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, spent over three years in a Navy brig before he was afforded any kind of hearing.
The evidence against him was proven to be non-existent and he was transferred to a civilian jail.
Canadians tortured in Syria
bogus information about terrorist ties
Amnesty calls for investigation
Canadian citizens Abdullah Almalki, center, Ahmad El Maati, left, and Muayyed Nureddin, background right, appear at a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006.

Almalki, a Syrian-born engineer whose parents emigrated to Canada when he was a boy, along with El Maati, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian, and Muayyed Nureddin, an Iraqi-born Canadian, were detained and tortured in Syria while being interrogated about terrorist ties.

Amnesty International on Thursday called on the Canadian government to launch independent investigations into the cases of these three Muslim citizens.

Almalki said he was visiting relatives in Syria in 2002 when he was arrested on suspicion of having ties to terrorists, based on information provided by the Canadian government.
 
Picture: CP/Jonathan Hayward
Suspected resistance
US trained and backed puppet government forces
US trained and backed puppet government soldiers stand guard near suspected resistance members at a US backed army camp in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, October 12, 2006.

Some 60 local Baquba men were arrested during raids in different parts of Baquba, with 41 of them admitting to being members of the resistance.

U.S. military casualties have surged in Iraq with troops who have been engaged in destoying many Iraq cities now facing unrelenting violence by Iraq resistance forces.

Picture: REUTERS/Helmiy al-Azawi  

(left)
Canadian citizens Abdullah Almalki, center, Ahmad El Maati, left, and Muayyed Nureddin, background right, appear at a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006.
Almalki, a Syrian-born engineer whose parents emigrated to Canada when he was a boy, along with El Maati, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian, and Muayyed Nureddin, an Iraqi-born Canadian, were detained and tortured in Syria while being interrogated about terrorist ties.
Amnesty International on Thursday called on the Canadian government to launch independent investigations into the cases of these three Muslim citizens.
Almalki said he was visiting relatives in Syria in 2002 when he was arrested on suspicion of having ties to terrorists, based on information provided by the Canadian government.
(right)
US trained and backed puppet government soldiers stand guard near suspected resistance members at a US backed army camp in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, October 12, 2006.
Some 60 local Baquba men were arrested during raids in different parts of Baquba, with 41 of them admitting to being members of the resistance.
U.S. military casualties have surged in Iraq with troops who have been engaged in destoying many Iraq cities now facing unrelenting violence by Iraq resistance forces.
Photos: CP/Jonathan Hayward, REUTERS/Helmiy al-Azawi







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
L ast week, statements made by one of the seven accused M.P.s, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who is expected to plead guilty, were released.   In them, he claimed that senior commanders in his unit would have stopped the abuse had they witnessed it.   One of the questions that will be explored at any trial, however, is why a group of Army Reserve military policemen, most of them from small towns, tormented their prisoners as they did, in a manner that was especially humiliating for Iraqi men.
The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq.   One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996.   The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression.   “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote.   Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity.   These are private affairs and remain in private.”   The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.”   In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged — “one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”
The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs.   It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends.   The government consultant said, “I was told that the purpose of the photographs was to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the population.”   The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the consultant said.   If so, it wasn’t effective; the insurgency continued to grow.
“This shit has been brewing for months,” the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with saps told me.   “You don’t keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs.   This is sick.”   The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib.   “We don’t raise kids to do things like that.   When you go after Mullah Omar, that’s one thing.   But when you give the authority to kids who don’t know the rules, that’s another.”
In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights.   “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me.   “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice.   It came pretty much out of the blue.   The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.”   The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled.   “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon.   The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.”   They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.


Shock, awe and the human body
By William Pfaff
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
PARIS   A historian in the future, or a moralist, is likely to deem the Bush administration's enthusiasm for torture the most striking aspect of its war against terrorism.
This started early. Proposals to authorize torture were circulating even before there was anyone to torture.
Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration made it known that the United States was no longer bound by international treaties, or by American law and established U.S. military standards, concerning torture and the treatment of prisoners.
By the end of 2001, the Justice Department had drafted memos on how to protect military and intelligence officers from eventual prosecution under existing U.S. law for their treatment of Afghan and other prisoners.
In January 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales (who is soon to become attorney general), advised George W. Bush that it could be done by fiat.
If the president simply declared "detainees" in Afghanistan outside the protection of the Geneva conventions, the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act — which carries a possible death penalty for Geneva violations — would not apply.
Those who protested were ignored, though the administration declared it would abide by the "spirit" of the conventions. Shortly afterward, the CIA asked for formal assurance that this pledge did not apply to its agents.
In March 2003, a Defense Department legal task force concluded that the president was not bound by any international or federal law on torture.
It said that as commander in chief, he had the authority "to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security."
Subsequent legal memos to civilian officials in the White House and Pentagon dwelt in morbid detail on permitted torture techniques, concluding that anything was permitted that did not (deliberately) kill the victim.
What is this all about?
The FBI, the armed forces' own legal officers, bar associations and other civil law groups have protested, as have retired intelligence officers and civilian law enforcement officials.
The United States has never before officially practiced torture. It was not deemed necessary in order to defeat Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
Its indirect costs are enormous: in their effect on the national reputation, their alienation of international opinion, and their corruption of the morale and morality of the American military and intelligence services.
Torture doesn't even work that well.
An indignant FBI witness of what has gone on at the Guantánamo prison camp says that "simple investigative techniques" could produce much information the army is trying to obtain through torture.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush administration is not torturing prisoners because it is useful but because of its symbolism.
It originally was intended to be a form of what later, in the attack on Iraq, came to be called "shock and awe." It was meant as intimidation.
We will do these terrible things to demonstrate that nothing will stop us from conquering our enemies.
We are indifferent to world opinion.
We will stop at nothing.
In that respect, it is like the attack on Falluja last month, which — destructive as it was — was fundamentally a symbolic operation.
Any insurgent who wanted to escape could do so long before the much-advertised attack actually began.
Its real purpose was exemplary destruction: to deliver a message to all of Iraq that this is what the United States can do to you if you continue the resistance.
It was collective punishment of the city's occupants for having tolerated terrorist operations based there.
The administration's obsession with shock and awe is a result of its misunderstanding of the war it is fighting, which is political and not military. America's dilemma is a very old one.
It is dealing with politically motivated revolutionaries, in the case of Al Qaeda, and nationalist and sectarian insurgents in the case of Iraq.
It has a conventional army, good for crushing cities.
But the enemy is not interested in occupying cities or defeating American armies.
Its war is for the minds of Muslims.
Destroying cities and torturing prisoners are things you do when you are losing the real war, the war your enemies are fighting.
They are signals of moral bankruptcy.
They destroy the confidence and respect of your friends, and reinforce the credibility of the enemy.
Copyright © 2004 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved

Just 650,000 Iraqis Killed
Only!
Just 650,000 people in Iraq Killed.

Only six hundred thousand people

Photo: www.aljazeerah.info/Jalal Al-Rifa'i, 

Al-Dustour, 10/15/06







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the wrongdoing to the Army’s Criminal Investigations Division.   He also turned over a CD full of photographs.   Within three days, a report made its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush.
The inquiry presented a dilemma for the Pentagon.   The C.I.D. had to be allowed to continue, the former intelligence official said.   “You can’t cover it up.   You have to prosecute these guys for being off the reservation.   But how do you prosecute them when they were covered by the special-access program? So you hope that maybe it’ll go away.”   The Pentagon’s attitude last January, he said, was “Somebody got caught with some photos.   What’s the big deal? Take care of it.”   Rumsfeld’s explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: “ ‘We’ve got a glitch in the program.   We’ll prosecute it.’   The cover story was that some kids got out of control.”
In their testimony before Congress last week, Rumsfeld and Cambone struggled to convince the legislators that Miller’s visit to Baghdad in late August had nothing to do with the subsequent abuse.   Cambone sought to assure the Senate Armed Services Committee that the interplay between Miller and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, had only a casual connection to his office.   Miller’s recommendations, Cambone said, were made to Sanchez.   His own role, he said, was mainly to insure that the “flow of intelligence back to the commands” was “efficient and effective.”   He added that Miller’s goal was “to provide a safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence.”
It was a hard sell.   Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, posed the essential question facing the senators:
If, indeed, General Miller was sent from Guantánamo to Iraq for the purpose of acquiring more actionable intelligence from detainees, then it is fair to conclude that the actions that are at point here in your report [on abuses at Abu Ghraib] are in some way connected to General Miller’s arrival and his specific orders, however they were interpreted, by those MPs and the military intelligence that were involved . . . Therefore, I for one don’t believe I yet have adequate information from Mr. Cambone and the Defense Department as to exactly what General Miller’s orders were . . . how he carried out those orders, and the connection between his arrival in the fall of ’03 and the intensity of the abuses that occurred afterward.
Sometime before the Abu Ghraib abuses became public, the former intelligence official told me, Miller was “read in”—that is, briefed—on the special-access operation.   In April, Miller returned to Baghdad to assume control of the Iraqi prisons; once the scandal hit, with its glaring headlines, General Sanchez presented him to the American and international media as the general who would clean up the Iraqi prison system and instill respect for the Geneva Conventions.   “His job is to save what he can,” the former official said.   “He’s there to protect the program while limiting any loss of core capability.”   As for Antonio Taguba, the former intelligence official added, “He goes into it not knowing shit.   And then: ‘Holy cow! What’s going on?’ ”
If General Miller had been summoned by Congress to testify, he, like Rumsfeld and Cambone, would not have been able to mention the special-access program.   “If you give away the fact that a special-access program exists,”the former intelligence official told me, “you blow the whole quick-reaction program.”
One puzzling aspect of Rumsfeld’s account of his initial reaction to news of the Abu Ghraib investigation was his lack of alarm and lack of curiosity.   One factor may have been recent history: there had been many previous complaints of prisoner abuse from organization like Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross, and the Pentagon had weathered them with ease.   Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had not been provided with details of alleged abuses until late March, when he read the specific charges.   “You read it, as I say, it’s one thing.   You see these photographs and it’s just unbelievable. . . It wasn’t three-dimensional.   It wasn’t video.   It wasn’t color.   It was quite a different thing.”   The former intelligence official said that, in his view, Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials had not studied the photographs because “they thought what was in there was permitted under the rules of engagement,” as applied to the sap.   “The photos,” he added, “turned out to be the result of the program run amok.”
The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or General Myers knew that atrocities were committed.   But, he said, “it was their permission granted to do the sap, generically, and there was enough ambiguity, which permitted the abuses.”
This official went on, “The black guys”—those in the Pentagon’s secret program—“say we’ve got to accept the prosecution.   They’re vaccinated from the reality.”   The sap is still active, and “the United States is picking up guys for interrogation.   The question is, how do they protect the quick-reaction force without blowing its cover?” The program was protected by the fact that no one on the outside was allowed to know of its existence.   “If you even give a hint that you’re aware of a black program that you’re not read into, you lose your clearances,” the former official said.   “Nobody will talk.   So the only people left to prosecute are those who are undefended—the poor kids at the end of the food chain.”
The most vulnerable senior official is Cambone.   “The Pentagon is trying now to protect Cambone, and doesn’t know how to do it,” the former intelligence official said.

EU concealed deal with US to allow 'rendition' flights
The European Union secretly allowed the United States to use transit facilities on European soil to transport "criminals" in 2003, according to a previously unpublished document.
The revelation contradicts repeated EU denials that it knew of "rendition" flights by the CIA.
...Asked in Parliament last week about reports of 400 suspect flights passing through British airports, Tony Blair said: "In respect of airports, I don't know what you are referring to."
The minutes of the Athens meeting on January 22, 2003, were written by the then Greek presidency of the EU after the talks with a US delegation headed by a justice department official.   EU officials confirmed that a full account was circulated to all member governments, and would have been sent to the Home Office.
...According to the full version, "Both sides agreed on areas where co-operation could be improved [inter alia] the exchange of data between border management services, increased use of European transit facilities to support the return of criminal/ inadmissible aliens, co-ordination with regard to false documents training and improving the co-operation in removals."
...But this section, and others referring to US policy, were deleted — as a "courtesy" to Washington, according to a spokesman for the EU Council of Ministers.
      By Justin Stares in Brussels and Philip Sherwell in Washington      
      Telegraph.co.uk       December 11, 2005      
 







THE GRAY ZONE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
Issue of 2004-05-24
Posted 2004-05-15
L ast week, the government consultant, who has close ties to many conservatives, defended the Administration’s continued secrecy about the special-access program in Abu Ghraib. “Why keep it black?”   the consultant asked.   “Because the process is unpleasant.   It’s like making sausage—you like the result but you don’t want to know how it was made.   Also, you don’t want the Iraqi public, and the Arab world, to know.   Remember, we went to Iraq to democratize the Middle East.   The last thing you want to do is let the Arab world know how you treat Arab males in prison.”
The former intelligence official told me he feared that one of the disastrous effects of the prison-abuse scandal would be the undermining of legitimate operations in the war on terror, which had already suffered from the draining of resources into Iraq.   He portrayed Abu Ghraib as “a tumor” on the war on terror.   He said, “As long as it’s benign and contained, the Pentagon can deal with the photo crisis without jeopardizing the secret program.   As soon as it begins to grow, with nobody to diagnose it—it becomes a malignant tumor.”
The Pentagon consultant made a similar point.   Cambone and his superiors, the consultant said, “created the conditions that allowed transgressions to take place.   And now we’re going to end up with another Church Commission”—the 1975 Senate committee on intelligence, headed by Senator Frank Church, of Idaho, which investigated C.I.A. abuses during the previous two decades.   Abu Ghraib had sent the message that the Pentagon leadership was unable to handle its discretionary power.   “When the shit hits the fan, as it did on 9/11, how do you push the pedal?” the consultant asked.   “You do it selectively and with intelligence.”
“Congress is going to get to the bottom of this,” the Pentagon consultant said.   “You have to demonstrate that there are checks and balances in the system.”   He added, “When you live in a world of gray zones, you have to have very clear red lines.”
Senator John McCain, of Arizona, said, “If this is true, it certainly increases the dimension of this issue and deserves significant scrutiny.   I will do all possible to get to the bottom of this, and all other allegations.”
“In an odd way,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, “the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions that is authorized.”   Since September 11th, Roth added, the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees.   “Some jags hate this and are horrified that the tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next war,” Roth told me.   “We’re giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions.   Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.”

Copyright © CondéNet 2004.   All rights reserved.
New Statesman — May 2004
America's Gulag
Stephen Grey
Stephen Grey uncovers a secret global network of prisons and planes that allows the US to hand over its enemies for interrogation, and sometimes torture, by the agents of its more unsavoury allies.
The airline's operations are embarrassing because they highlight intense co-operation with regimes of countries such as Egypt, Syria and Pakistan, which are criticised for their human rights record.   The movements of these planes expose a vast archipelago of prison camps and centres where America can carry out torture by proxy.   The operations are illegal, in that they violate the anti-torture convention promoted by George W Bush which prohibits the transfer of suspects abroad for torture.
...The former CIA agent Bob Baer, who worked covertly for the US across the Middle East until the mid-1990s, describes how each Middle Eastern country has a purpose in the archipelago.   He says: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan.   If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria.   If you want someone to disappear — never to see them again — you send them to Egypt."
...In Uzbekistan, a maverick British ambassador, Craig Murray, was put on sick leave after he publicly exposed human rights abuses, including execution of Islamist dissidents by boiling alive.
Uzbekistan is one of Britain's and America's closest allies in central Asia because it has provided bases that have enabled operations into Afghanistan.
The US is settling in for a long-term presence in return for tolerating human-rights abuses.
UPDATE: November 17, 2004 www.DemocracyNow.org
The Sunday Times of London has obtained evidence that the US government is leasing a special Gulfstream Jet to transport detained suspects to other nations that routinely use torture in their prisons.
Logs for the airplane show the Pentagon and CIA have used the plane more than 300 times and dropped off detainees in Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan.
The Gulfstream and a similarly anonymous-looking Boeing 737 are hired by American agents from Premier Executive Transport Services, a private company in Massachusetts.
Analysis of the plane's flight plans, covering more than two years, shows that it always departs from Washington DC.
It has flown to a total of 49 destinations outside the US, including the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba and other US military bases, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, Libya and Uzbekistan.
Witnesses have claimed that the suspects are frequently bound, gagged and sedated before being put on board the planes, which do not have special facilities for prisoners but are kitted out with tables for meetings and screens for presentations and in-flight films.
The US plane is not used just for carrying prisoners but also appears to be at the disposal of defense and intelligence officials on assignments from Washington.

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined by Stephen Grey, who is a journalist with the Sunday Times, who exposed the story this week, how the U.S. is operating these secret flights.  Welcome to Democracy Now!
STEPHEN GREY: Hi.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us further about these flights, who the people are, and how you found out about them?
STEPHEN GREY: Well, first of all, it has remained something of a mystery, the whole story.
Obviously, bit by bit, the whole — this kind of secret world is unraveling.
And we are getting more and more information about the individual cases, where these planes are being used.
What it exposes is the tentacles of a wider system whereby prisoners are being taken in the war on terror, not only to Guantanamo, but to many other place and those places include the prisons of so-called allies of the U.S. and Britain, around the world.
Those countries which are allies of the U.S. include countries where torture is routine.
Obviously, the concerns that many people have are that these kind of transfers basically allow the U.S. to pass prisoners into the hands of the secret police of other countries to do the kind of interrogation, torture in fact, of prisoners that the U.S. is not allowed to do itself.
Kind of torture by proxy.
AMY GOODMAN: The company, can you talk about that?
STEPHEN GREY: Yeah. I mean, I think the company is not that important in a sense.
These are private planes.
They're being leased.
They're not marked.
That's the point about them.
They can appear anywhere, and you have, you know, innocent-looking, if you like, executive jets parked on the runways of airports around the world.
No one is to know they're actually planes run by the U.S. military and intelligence services.
So, they have a perfect cover, if you like.
But it's — what's happening is that — I mean, they're hired from a company that operates in Massachusetts, and others.
But you know, they're probably just a normal, private company.
What they're doing is leasing it out.
They only work for the government.
As I say, the plane is not just used for carrying prisoners.
It's also used for transferring of interrogators and also regular V.I.P. and defense and intelligence officials from Washington.
But what we have found is at least four cases which have emerged where this plane has been seen actually picking up prisoners, and in the first case which we discovered, the prisoner was — the two prisoners were taken from Sweden to Egypt, and at the time — this has happened just after September 11, and it's been going on since, but in this case, just after September 11, two prisoners were taken on board.
The Swedish government never mentioned the U.S. at the time.
They said they were just sending — extraditing two prisoners.
What actually happened was that the U.S. was there with the secret plane.
They stripped these men of their clothes, handcuffed them, put them in diapers, gave them sedatives against their will, put them on the plane, and took them to Egypt.
And since then, we have discovered these planes — these prisoners complained of being very seriously tortured with electric shocks all over their bodies as a result of being taken to Egypt.
That's the consequence of this kind of process which we know is rendition.
AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Grey, I want to thank you for being with us, the Sunday Times of London, exposing the U.S. torture flights.

kewe note: Amnesty has done an extensive report on prison conditions in Uzbekistan.   See below.
Torture and death in Uzbekistan
Tuesday, 21 December, 2004
New jail abuse allegations hit US
Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq
Some documents post-date the Abu Ghraib scandal
Fresh allegations have emerged of serious mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US military personnel.
Memos between FBI officials detailing abuses, some datedafter the Abu Ghraib jail scandal, were released as part of a lawsuitagainst the government.
Others allege serious mistreatment of prisoners from the Afghan war held in the US military base at Guantanamo Bay.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case to determine whether the US was mistreating prisoners.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said thedocuments raised grave questions about who was to blame for widespread detainee abuse.
"Top government officials can no longer hide from publicscrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers," he said.
Last week documents released for the casethrew up fresh revelations of abuse in Iraq by US marines, 13 of whom have been convicted and some jailed.
The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hairnext to him — he had been pulling his own hair out throughout the night
Text of FBI memo on Guantanamo
'Executive order'
The documents, which were obtained through the Freedomof Information Act, are mostly made up of communications between FBI agents concerned at seeing interrogation techniques they are prohibited from using in their own investigations.
One of the memorandums released on Monday provided the account of an agent who observed "serious physical abuses" in Iraq.
It was dated 24 June — two months after the extent ofabuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison was revealed — and was marked"urgent" and sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller.
It described strangulation, beatings and the placing of lit cigarettes into detainees' ears.
Another document said an executive ordersigned by President George W Bush had authorised techniques such as"sleep management", stress positions, use of military dogs and sensory deprivation.
The White House was quick to respond to this allegation, saying: "What the FBI agent wrote in the e-mail is wrong.   There is no executive order on interrogation techniques."
Impersonation
A document relating to Guantanamo suggests that detainees — suspected Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters captured during the war in Afghanistan — were shackled to the floor in foetal positions formore than 24 hours at a time, left without food and water and allowedto defecate on themselves.
One detainee's air conditioning was turned off in an unventilated room, making it unbearably hot, it was reported.
"The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor with a pile of hair next to him," the memo said.   "He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."
Other allegations contained in the e-mails include:
  • That military interrogators impersonated FBI agents, apparently to avoid possible blame in subsequent inquiries
  • That this method was approved by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
  • The rape of a juvenile male detainee at Abu Ghraib prison, currently under investigation
  • That one Guantanamo detainee was wrapped inan Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music in an apparent attempt to soften his resistance to interrogation.
The Pentagon has not commented on the latest allegations of abuse, but spokesman Bryan Whitman denied that Mr Wolfowitz had approved impersonation techniques.
The department has also said in relation to previous cases that it did not tolerate abusive tactics.
Some allegations in the documents are under investigation, the Pentagon added.
FROM OTHER NEWS SITES:
Unspeakable grief and horror
                        ...and the circus of deception continues...
Most recent 'Circus'    click here
— 2014
— 2013
— 2012
— 2011
— 2010
— 2009
— 2008
— 2007
— 2006
— 2005
— 2004
— 2003
Circus of Torture   2003 — now
He says, "You are quite mad, Kewe"
And of course I am.
Why, I don't believe any of it — not the bloody body, not the bloody mind, not even the bloody Universe, or is it bloody multiverse.
"It's all illusion," I say.   "Don't you know, my lad, my lassie.   The game!   The game, me girl, me boy!   Takes on interest, don't you know.   T'is me sport, till doest find a better!"
Pssssst — but all this stuff is happening down here
Let's change it!
To say hello:     hello[the at marker]Kewe.info
For Kewe's spiritual and metaphysical pages — click here
       Film outlining massacre of Afghanistans can be viewed on      www.DemocracyNow.Org      
       Click here.    Archive date:    Thursday, May 20th, 2004.      
Afghanistan US military abuse of tribal people.

'After that I was so humiliated I couldn't see for my pain'

What I find is that the US Marines act with impunity.

They are conducting cordon and search operations designed to humiliate and terrorise the local community into compliance.

This is a rare and damning insight into what US forces are doing in that other “war on terror.”

Away from the eyes of the media, humiliation and brutalisation tactics similar to those used at Abu Ghraib are practiced here with impunity.

This documentary on Afghaistan by Carmela Baranowska that won the Walkley Award is a unique and unprecedented look at the sharp edge of the war on terror in one of the most remote and inaccessible places on earth.
Winner of the Walkley Award   Australian filmmaker   Carmela Baranowska.
What I find is that the US Marines act with impunity.  They are conducting cordon and search operations designed to humiliate and terrorise the local community into compliance.
This is a rare and damning insight into what US forces are doing in that other “war on terror.”
Away from the eyes of the media, humiliation and brutalisation tactics similar to those used at Abu Ghraib are practiced here with impunity.
This documentary is a unique and unprecedented look at the sharp edge of the war on terror in one of the most remote and inaccessible places on earth.
 
 
 
 
 
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.cc website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.