Tracy,

According to the article the powers that be had to know about the abuses. I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe the lawyer found about about problems at Guantanimo. He found out because another head lawyer based at the dept of defense was receiving emails from his subordinates that had been sent to guantanimo.

They had 2 groups of interrogators. One group was lawyers from the dept of defense. Another group was assembled by the pentagon. The lawyers were reading logs written by the pentagon interrogators that detailed their methods of interrogation.

At a minimum, the lawyer the article was about was repulsed by what he heard. He tried to bring this to the attention of anyone he could find. If the person he found was associated with the administration, they didn't want to hear what he had to say.



>General Miller has denied recommending the use of guard dogs to intimidate prisoners during interrogations in Iraq. He also recently said he would not testify in the courts-martial of Sergeants Cardona and Smith, invoking his right to avoid self-incrimination
>
>They cannot let that go. It should be on every newspaper and on every tv news program.
>
>Once again the military high ranking and the administration are pulling a fast one. I am losing total respect for the top military including and especially the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense. They have left those soldiers out to dry. In my opinion they are responsible but not also alone in their responsibility. The lower ranks (anyone not in the position to set policy) are following verbal guidelines while the upper echelon (those in a position to set policy) are condoning abusive treatment without being specific in writing as to what is allowed and what is not under all cases (detainee, pow, epw, etc). They get the results they want without being responsible for them. I cannot believe the public is not screaming that no one of senior rank has been called onto the carpet for this and especially the 2003 events. I think the public actually believes that those soldiers were completely responsible and had the ability and authority to walk away from it. Those
>personally responsible are serving their punishment (in many cases) but those making and enforcing policy are not. I have always believed that those punished 'thought' they were following guidelines and working within the law. Especially in the case of the interrogations. Notice how all of those punished were MPs and not interrogators. Interrogators are grilled on policy and the Geneva conventions and MPs were not in the past. Now they are given verbal guidelines which differ because the prisoner's status is not clear. I am sure those in Iraq know this but are powerless to do anything about it. The 'line' becomes very blurry when you witness such atrocities on a daily basis. You become numb to the effects. That is why policy is set at higher echelons and is in writing. It is time for the higher echelons to take responsibility and stop declaring 'it doesn't happen' and then punishing those that follow what they thought were guidelines. A private follows a sergeant. A
>sergeant follows a section leader, the section leader follows the platoon sergeant. The platoon sergeant follows the 1st sergeant. The 1st sergeant follows the command sergeant major. They all follow the office at their level (platoon leader is the officer for platoon, etc).
>
>>Perry:
>>
>>This is from today's a Post editorial at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701320.html
>>
>>The de facto principles governing the punishment of U.S. personnel guilty of prisoner abuse since 2002 now are clear: Torturing a foreign prisoner to death is excusable. Authoring and implementing policies of torture may lead to promotion. But being pictured in an Abu Ghraib photograph that leaks to the press is grounds for a heavy prison sentence.
>>
>>... Subsequent investigation showed that the deceased prisoner, an Iraqi named Manadel al-Jamadi, died of asphyxiation on Nov. 4, 2003: He was tortured to death by Navy SEAL and CIA interrogators who took turns punching and kicking him, then handcuffed his arms behind his back and shackled them to a window five feet above the floor. Nine SEALs, a sailor and several CIA personnel were implicated in the killing. As it turned out, the Abu Ghraib guard who posed with the body, former Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., was not involved. Two years after the photo came into the hands of Army investigators, the result of the case is this: Mr. Graner is serving a 10-year prison sentence for his role in the nonlethal abuse of other detainees at Abu Ghraib -- and no one involved in killing Mr. Jamadi has suffered serious penalty.
>>
>>And this from today's NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28lagouranis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>>
>>From January 2004 to January 2005, I served in various places in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) as an Army interrogator. Following orders that I believed were legal, I used military working dogs during interrogations. I terrified my interrogation subjects, but I never got intelligence (mostly because 90 percent of them were probably innocent, but that's another story).
>>
>>In training, we learned that all P.O.W.'s are protected against actual and implied threats. You can never put a "knife on the table" to get someone to talk. That was clear. But our Iraqi prisoners weren't clearly classified as P.O.W.'s, so I never knew what laws applied. Instead, a confusing set of verbal and written orders had supplanted the Geneva Conventions.
>>
>>Sergeants Cardona and Smith have been accused of sick and sadistic behavior. They face the prospect of serious jail time. But they almost certainly acted believing they were following legal orders. In the military, orders are orders unless there is clear, uncluttered law transmitted from far above our commanders' rank and station. Instead of a clear message prohibiting torture, our top commanders gave us a deliberate muddying of the waters.
>>
>>Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, recently shepherded a ban on torture through Congress. Then, while reluctantly signing the legislation, President Bush muddled this very clear ban on torture by stating that he would construe it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."
>>
>>Soldiers on the ground need a commander in chief who does not seek strained legalisms that "permit" the use of torture. The McCain amendment, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment in all instances, is an accurate reflection of the true values of the military and American society. We should adhere to it strictly and in all cases. I know, from personal experience, that any leeway given will be used to maximum effect against detainees. No slope is more slippery, I learned in Iraq, than the one that leads to torture.
>>
>>
>>>Tracy,
>>>
>>>Based on what I've heard and read, I need further convincing the abuses have ended. I heard too many recent stories to believe that to be the case. Especially since the abuse was condoned at the highest levels. It was a total whitewash to say that it was individual soldiers that committed the abusive acts.
>>>
>>>Please read the story in this months New Yorker to read a defense dept lawyer's experience. Everyone he talked to who was politically associated with the white house saw no problem with well documented abuses. None!
>>>
>>>There was a front page story on MSN yesterday that there's a prison in Afghanistan that makes guantanimo look like club med.
>>>
>>>I would be willing to bet my paycheck against yours that the initial reaction from the white house when abu ghraib first came to light was shock that the story made the press. Nothing about shock that the abuses were actually occurring.
>>>
>>>PF
>>>
>>>>You are right Metin. Abuse or torture in one location does not condone it someplace else. I never intended to imply that. Nothing condones abuse and torture.
>>>>
>>>>The difference is not that American children throwing bombs would make a difference. The difference is that American children are not throwing bombs daily in a war zone and Amreican suicide bombers are not driving through checkpoints here in a war zone, and Americans here in the U.S. are not detonating roadside bombs. It is not that the people are not American or the children are not American children; it is because it is a war zone and the soldiers are under fire everyday.
>>>>
>>>>I really think that the abuse in prisons and during interrogations is almost nil today. I say that because of the punishments highly publicized those found guilty received for the 2003 incident and also the House and Senate bill that seriously restricts interrogation and treatment under U.S. law which did not exist before. They are now afraid to do anything other than talk the prisoner to death.
>>>>
>>>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109Bk8Tdo:e911694:
>>>>
>>>>(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
>>>> (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
>>>> (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
>>>> (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Tracy,
>>>>>
>>>>>I see you nervous. :)
>>>>>But I know you are so polite...
>>>>>
>>>>>Are we in a country race?
>>>>>I never said Turkish military didn't do some bad things. I don't try reject bad things even about my country.
>>>>>
>>>>>Turkish police and military forces might did some bad things;
>>>>>Are these make USA's soldiers doings good?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Innocent people are shot when soldiers panic in the middle of fire fights and are being shot at and one child throws a bomb and ten others throw rocks - the soldier cannot tell who is what age and who is throwing what. If you have served in the military you know this yourself. You do your best
>>>>>
>>>>>All Turkish men have to do military service in Turkey. Of course I did too.
>>>>>Please say me;
>>>>>If anyone throws a bomb in USA is your polices shooting everywhere in panic? I'm sure your answer will -No-. Because they are your children and so polices will be carefull. Soldiers in Iraq don't give Iraq people worthy.