6/17/07: Sy Hersh on Taguba?s Abu Ghraib Investigation

FREE Lynndie ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!

Architects of torture 'Nuremburg Reborn'

The Alberto Gonzalez Torture Memo Story

FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques


Autopsy reports reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody


I'm retired from the Federal Government, after 33 years, of service, Never, have I ever seen,
anyone give an order as a private or a low grade in pay. It doesn't happen within the Federal
Government. Someone with a higher pay grade gave the order to abuse the prisoners, and
it came from someone high in the chain of command..
Maybe Cheney >>>> Rumsfelt for sure.I would bet  on that...

bugs - brawny@twlakes.net

Abusive Correspondence: Send any abusive rants you might have to: president@whitehouse.gov

Col. Janis Karpinski said, "These pictures were staged there was no electricity in Abu Ghraib. They used generators." The articles used were PROPS, black hoods, electrodes, hoods, leashes were provided by Iraqis and people from Guantanamo Bay where these props were tested...........
"Lynndie England was specifically selected to pose in pictures. Lynndie just followed ORDERS! It goes to the very top, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Gonzales......."  --Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret.

Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret. Discusses The Lynndie England  Case: Wow what an AMAZING  Story  --CHARLES GOYETTE  KXXT 1010 AM Phoenix, AZ.....

...Listen to: http://www.apfn.org/audio/2005-10-24-Charles-01.mp3
Lynndie England was a 'patsy' for Bush, Rumsfeld and Gonzales!


Wednesday, October 26th, 2005
Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits
She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame
"Goes All the Way to The Top”

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3      
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream       Read Transcript



The Abu Ghraib Scandal Cover-Up? -


CONTACT: http://www.house.gov/harman/emailJane.html

Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel

Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW.htm 
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW2.htm  
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW3.htm   
Part 4 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW4.htm  
Part 5 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW5.htm  
Part 6 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW6.htm  
Part 7 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW7.htm  
Part 8 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW8.htm 
Part 9 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW9.htm  
Legal Docs. http://www.apfn/apfn/POW_legal_doc  

53 Page Prison Abuse Report http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Prison_abuse_report.pdf
24 Page Red Cross Report http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Red-Cross-report.pdf

Iraqis Abused by U.S. Personnel - Military Documents

FREE Lynndie ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!

Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret. Discusses The Lynndie England Cast.... Compelling.....

10/24/05 Charles Goyette Show.... "A compelling Story...."
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 1 (9.24 MB) Guest: General Janis Karpinski

It will be "fun" to watch what links that they have to the people who are named as "defendants".
Have you watched the
Lynndie England case? She is in a graveyard spiral descent on her claim that
"higherups" made her do it. She talks a lot but has no evidence.



Lynndie England  CASE"
Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for 
Lynndie England Case
Monster Forums (Logged in as: -1)
Lynndie England  belongs in jail! Anyone who believes that this woman didn't ...
Lynndie England  was an MP in the National Guard, she had extensive training! ...

Minuteman Message Board :: View topic - FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!! Goto page Previous 1, 2 ... I think in this case,
given the context, it isn't referring so much to someone who is not ...

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:57:24 pm Post subject:
Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
Lynndie England! Her only crime was getting caught.....
All that lovely dark sweating flesh how could she and the boys of the platoon resist tearing their clothes off and doing unspeakable things to them?Why just pick on them just because they got their pics for the album to show the folks back home?
Cindy is in Jail while that pinko liberal commie peacenick Cindy Sheehan walks the streets disturbing the conscience of America............what is the country coming to?


Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski
Fmr. Commander, 800th Military Police Brigade
Interview by Leon Worden



Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret. Discusses The Lindy England Cast.... Complling.....

10/24/05 Charles Goyetter Show.... "A complling Story...."
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 1 (9.24 MB) Guest: General Janis Karpinski


It's not Lynndie England  who ripped up the Geneva Conventions. It's not Lindy
England who authorized the use of guard dogs to terrorize prisoners.

Getting Away with Torture? Human Rights Watch Calls for Accountability Into U.S. Abuse of Detainees
Human Rights Watch is demanding that a special prosecutor be named to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet and other top officials for possible war crimes related to the torture and abuse of prisoners. We speak with Human Rights Watch special counsel Reed Brody. [includes rush transcript]


Orders to Torture
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal now implicates the highest levels of the Bush Administration in violating federal law and in war crimes. In barely two weeks, the story has shifted from horrific photographs of prisoners to intimations of homicide; from prison mismanagement blamed on the fog of war to the cool clarity of deliberate White House designs to protect torturers from prosecution; from "the six morons who lost the war" to the Defense Secretary, the White House Counsel and the President himself. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gonzales.htm

From: archive@blythe.org  [mailto:archive@blythe.org ] On Behalf Of nytr@olm.blythe-systems.com
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:19 PM
To: nytr@olm.blythe-systems.com Alberto Gonzales: The Torture Guy
Subject: [NYTr] Attorney General Pinochet (Boyle)

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

Attorney General Pinochet
by Prof Francis A. Boyle
November 11, 2004
As White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales originated, authorized, approved, and aided and abetted grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are serious war crimes. In other words, Gonzales is a prima facie war criminal. He must be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act. For example, article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War provides in relevant part with respect to presumptive U.S. war criminals such as Gonzales: "Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such graves breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts." To the same effect is article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting Civilians in wartime. This obligation to prosecute Gonzales applies to every High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, which means every state in the world. And there is no statute of limitations for the commission of such serious war crimes. The same conclusions can be reached by the application of U.S. Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, which, by its own terms, also applies to civil Beyond The Roots Of Abu Ghraib lian government officials involved in ordering or participating in the commission of war crimes. In any event, the U.S. Senate must reject his nomination. As a presumptive war criminal, Gonzales is not fit to be Attorney General of the United States of America. Should Gonzales travel around the world in that capacity, human rights lawyers such as myself will attempt to get him prosecuted wherever he might go along the lines of what happened to General Pinochet in London. Like pirates, war criminals are hostes humani generis--the enemies of all humankind.
[Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of International Law and the author of "Destroying World Order" (Clarity Press: 2004)]
Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gonzales.htm

Gonzales memo to Bush on prisoner treatment (PDF file), January 25, 2002.


What About Bush's Moral Values In Nominating Gonzales For AG? http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gonzales.htm

The Gonzales memos claimed that Bush had "the right to wave anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war." http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11112004.html

Gonzales was part of Bush's inner circle of advisers during the executions of mentally retarded killer Terry Washington in 1997 and pickax murderer Karla Faye Tucker, for whom clemency was sought by Pope John Paul II, in 1998.

While Texas' governor, Bush oversaw more than 150 executions.

Liberals are reviewing a 2003 Atlantic Monthly magazine article claiming that as Bush's legal counsel in Texas, Gonzales on clemency petitions "repeatedly failed to appraise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence."

The attorney general should be someone who will "not approach this topic with a cavalier attitude," said David Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

While they're not taking an official position on Gonzales, "the track record is not promising," Elliot said.

Published on Thursday, November 11, 2004 by the International Herald Tribune
Alberto Gonzales: The Torture Guy

by Maureen Dowd

WASHINGTON - During the U.S. presidential campaign, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney gave the ominous impression that there was a dire threat that terrorists could incinerate Americans at any time if that powder puff John Kerry got anywhere near the Oval Office.

We Americans felt the hot breath of the wolf pack bearing down on us. But only a week later, the alarums have dimmed.

The administration lowered the terror threat in New York and Washington on Wednesday, and the Capitol Hill police were dismantling the elaborate security checkpoints they had put on streets around the Capitol to thwart would-be bombers.

In his handwritten resignation letter, John Ashcroft reassured Bush that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

Mission accomplished. Tell those wolves to scat and let that eagle soar, baby.

It was a tad surprising that Ashcroft would want to leave just when he had a mandate to throw blue curtains over every naked statue in town and hold Bible study for government employees. (He called his daily devotionals at the Justice Department "RAMP": Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray.)

The president is putting his own counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who wrote the famous memo defending torture, in charge of America's civil liberties. Torture Guy, who blithely threw off 75 years of international law and set the stage for the grotesque abuses at Abu Ghraib and dubious detentions at Guantánamo, seems to have a good grasp of what's just. No doubt we'll soon learn what other protections, besides the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, Gonzales finds "quaint" and "obsolete."

With the FBI investigating Halliburton and the second-term scandal curse looming, Bush and Cheney want a dependable ally - and former Enron attorney - at Justice. But since the country is controlled by one party and the press has tended toward the pusillanimous, cowed by the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as he tries to throw reporters in jail, the White House may be able to suppress any second-term problems.

Bush should quit fiddling around on the domestic side and revamp his war council and national security team. The Bushies can stop mentioning Osama's name and tell themselves that his last, less militant video was a sign of weakness, but it's just part of their dangerous denial. Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 innocents on 9/11; let's nail him.

Even as Karl Rove boasts that "moral values" swept his boss back into the White House, it never seems to occur to the president that it's immoral to endanger America's troops in a war shaped by the political clock, a war with no visible enemy, no coherent plan and no exit timetable.

Falluja, supposed to be a defining battle, showed only how undefined this guerrilla war is. The Marines swept into a city deserted by most of the insurgents, who were terrorizing and kidnapping Iraqis elsewhere.

"Falluja isn't Masada or the Alamo," Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate, "some last-ditch outpost where the rebels whoop their final battle cry, rally one more round of resistance, then pass into history when their last rifleman falls."

Wednesday night, the military said it dominated 70 percent of Falluja. But what good does that do if 98 percent of the bad guys have already moved on, or if 100 percent of the Sunnis boycott the elections out of anger over the assault? It's just like when Bush says 75 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. What good is that if Al Qaeda has become an inspirational force for 100 percent of the jihadists?

The math is self-defeating. Pictures of forces taking a Falluja mosque will no doubt spur a surge of terrorist recruits, who won't be fooled by the Marines' new camouflage: their Iraqi vanguard.

Just as there is talk here that John Kerry may want to run again, there is also talk that Donald Rumsfeld wants to stay on to continue his transformation of the military. Rummy's stubborn need to show that America could do more with less is what kept us from having the strength to secure Iraq at the start, turning our troops into targets for a ghostly foe armed with the explosives and missiles looted by insurgents from unguarded caches.

The president should say to Rummy what the Democrats should say to Kerry: "Thanks, you've done quite enough."

© 2004 IHT


Iraqi women raped at Abu Ghraib jail

US officer says prison guards tried to cover up abuse of Iraqi prisoners



The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal


of 4 days of incarceration
in March. His arrest was
a mistake. Time Magazine.



Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski Met Israeli Interrogator in Iraq
Now, the ones that were around the interrogation? I don't know. I was visiting an interrogation facility one time — not under my control, but I was escorting a four-star. And he wanted to go back and observe an interrogation that was taking place. They asked me if I wanted to go and I said no. So I was standing there and, you know, the usual conversation, just kind of chit-chat, there (were) three individuals there and two of them had DCU pants on, one had a pair of blue jeans on, but they all had T-shirts on. They did not appear to be military people. And I said to one of the — one of them asked me, "So what's new?" Or, "What's challenging about being a female general officer over here?" And I said, "Oh! Too long a story, but it's all fun." And I said to this guy who was sitting up on the counter, I said to him, "Are you local?" Because he looked like he was Kuwaiti. I said, "Are you an interpreter?" He said, "No, I'm an interrogator." And I said, "Oh, are you from here?" And he said, "No, actually, I'm from Israel." And I was kind of shocked. And I think I laughed. And I said, "No, really?" And he said, "No, really, I am." And — but it was — I didn't pursue it, I just said, "Oh, I visited your country a couple of years ago and I was amazed that there's so little difference between the appearance of Israelis and Americans," and — I really was just kind of making chit-chat at that point.
Full Report :http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Karpinski.htm


A former employee of the Iraqi Abu-Greib jail claims that the world does not know the whole truth of that jail in the environs of Baghdad. Private Lindy England was sentenced last week to three years in prison for cruel treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Yet the 22-year-old woman continues to insist that she is a scapegoat.
Many see private Lindy England as an emblem of last year’s scandal round the Abu-Greib jail. The photo on which she is posing with completely undressed prisoner holding him as a dog on something like dog’s lead has been re-printed by newspapers of many countries. On other photos there were other soldiers safeguarding the jail. Yet, observer Oleg Gribkov says, editors of many newspapers decided that Lindy England’s photos were most impressive. That young woman does not come from a rich US family, she enlisted because of money problems and become notorious against her own will.
Her last interview before going to her cell Lindy England gave to NBC TV company. She used the opportunity to repeat what she said during court hearings, and this is she and her former fellow workers judged by the tribunal were only executors of someone else’s orders. Their chiefs told them that all they did was necessary to force prisoners to give evidence under the fear of making public shameful photos. As is known, the tribunal rejected these statements and agreed with the Pentagon’s version. According to the Pentagon’s version, several privates safeguarding the jail took photos at their own initiative because of their perverted mentality. When these tricks became known to public, the Pentagon claims, the culprits began inventing that there were certain orders out the wish to shirk responsibility. Some experts believe, however, that it is the Pentagon that wants to shirk the responsibility.
Let’s consider Lindy England’s last interview. She added more to the evidence she gave at the court. She told about certain Americans who came to the Abu Greib jail to torture prisoners. And this, she added, was not psychological pressure brought to bear, something like getting undressed before the camera, but real tortures. Who were those Americans? She does not know. What she knows is that they were not military men. The Abu Greib jail was officially controlled by the Pentagon, yet it is known for certain that often CIA men came there to interrogate prisoners.

Lynndie England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Spc. England holding a leash attached to a prisoner collapsed on the floor, known to the guards as "Gus"

Lynndie Rana England (born November 8, 1982) is a U.S. Army reservist, one of several soldiers convicted by the U.S. Army in connection with the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in a Baghdad prison during the Occupation of Iraq.

England held the rank of Specialist in the 372nd Military Police company while serving in Iraq. Along with other soldiers, she was found guilty of inflicting sexual, physical and psychological abuse on Iraqi prisoners of war.

England faced a general court-martial in January 2005 on charges of conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and assault consummated by battery. The formal charges did not mention the word "torture" although many commentators have so described her conduct. On April 30, 2005, England agreed to plead guilty to abuse charges. Her plea bargain would have reduced her maximum sentence from 16 years to 11 years had it been accepted by the federal judge. She would have pleaded guilty to four counts of maltreating prisoners, two counts of conspiracy, and one count of dereliction of duty. In exchange, prosecutors would have dropped two other charges, committing indecent acts and failure to obey a lawful order.

On May 4, 2005 Col. James Pohl tossed out her plea bargain as new testimony by now Pvt. Graner suggested that Pfc. England did not know her actions were wrong at the time. This contradicts Pfc. England's statements of May 2, 2005, when she entered her guilty plea. On September 26, 2005, England was convicted of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count.[1] England has been sentenced to three years for her crimes and given a dishonorable discharge.

On September 27, 2005, England apologised for appearing in the pictures, though not for the maltreatment and assault she committed on the prisoners.




Spc. England with Spc. Charles Graner
Spc. England with Spc. Charles Graner

Born in Ashland, Kentucky, United States[2], England moved with her family to Fort Ashby, West Virginia, when she was two years old. She grew up in a trailer park as the daughter of a railroad worker, Kenneth England, who worked at the station in nearby Cumberland, Maryland, and Terrie Bowling England. At school, Lynndie England, just 5 ft 3 in (157 cm) tall, was known for wearing combat boots and camouflage fatigues. She graduated from Frankfort High School in 2002.

England joined the Army Reserve in Cumberland in 2001 while she was a junior at Frankfort High School in Ridgeley, to escape from a night job in a chicken-processing factory and to earn money so she could go to college to become a storm chaser. She was also a member of the Future Farmers of America. After graduating from high school in 2001, she worked as a cashier in an IGA and married a co-worker, James L. Fike, in 2002, but they later divorced. She was sent to Iraq in 2003.

England was engaged to fellow reservist Charles Graner. She gave birth to a son, Carter Allan England, at 21:25 on October 11, 2004, at Womack Army Medical Center on Fort Bragg. News accounts of the birth referred to Graner as England's "ex-boyfriend".


England has been charged with abusing Iraqi prisoners of war at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. She appears in several photographs taken in 2003 at the prison, smiling and pointing at the genitalia of naked and hooded young male prisoners. In some of these photographs she appears alongside Charles Graner, giving the thumbs up in a sexually humiliating shot.

England was initially charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with 19 separate violations. Ten of these were in February 2004. She pleaded guilty to seven of these on April 30, 2005:

  • Two counts of conspiracy (with Specialist Charles Graner) to commit maltreatment of an Iraqi detainee by posing in a photograph holding a leash around the neck of the detainee;
  • Four counts of maltreating Iraqi detainees; and
  • One count of dereliction of duty.

The other charges were dropped. These charges included:

  • One count of an indecent act by forcing Iraqi detainees to simulate masturbation;
  • One count of failing to obey a lawful order;
  • Several counts of committing acts "that were prejudicial to good order and discipline and were of nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces through her mistreatment of Iraqi detainees".

If the judge had accepted her plea bargain, England would have faced a maximum sentence of up to eleven years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.


Even before England was formally charged, she was transferred to the U.S. military installation at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina on May 5, 2004, because of her pregnancy. Fort Bragg spokespeople say that England, who is not currently confined, is assigned to light duties with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company in the 16th Military Police Brigade at Fort Bragg, although she is attached to the 18th Airborne Corps' Dragon Brigade.

Spc. England pointing to naked prisoners
Spc. England pointing to naked prisoners

England's court-martial was scheduled to begin at 08:00 hrs on June 22 in Fort Bragg's Staff Judge Advocate building, the only Abu Ghraib case that the Army plans to hold in the United States, but the proceedings were delayed on June 21 on the agreement of both sides. Fort Bragg spokesperson Jackie Thomas informed the media that July 12 is the new date for the trial, which will begin with an Article 32 [3] hearing, taking place before Col. Denise Arn, the presiding officer. Like a grand jury, the court will hear testimony and arguments from both the military prosecutors and England's defense, and will then decide whether to recommend a full court-martial. The hearing will be open to the media.

England fired her first lawyer, Giorgio Ra'Shadd, after he was accused of improper handling of finances in an unrelated case. England is currently represented by Rose Mary Zapor and Roy Hardy, Colorado-based civilian lawyers, who say that during the trial they may call up to 100 witnesses, including the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.

England was charged with two counts of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, one count of dereliction of duty, four counts of cruelty and maltreatment and two counts of committing indecent acts at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.

She originally faced 19 criminal counts that could have brought up to 38 years behind bars, but military prosecutors reduced the charges in February, 2005. No explanation was given for the reduction.

At her trial in May 2005, military judge Colonel James Pohl declared a mistrial on the grounds that he could not accept her plea of guilty under a plea-bargain to a charge of conspiring with Spc. Charles Graner Jr. to maltreat detainees after Graner testified that he believed that, in placing a tether around the naked detainee's neck and asking England to pose for a photograph with him, he was documenting a legitimate use of force.

At her retrial, England was convicted on September 26, 2005 of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. Along with a dishonorable discharge, England received a three-year prison sentence on September 27. The prosecution had asked the jury to imprison England for four to six years. Her defense lawyers asked for no time.

Graner, the alleged ringleader of the abuse, was convicted on all charges earlier this year and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Graner and England were once lovers, and authorities believe he is the father of England's newborn child.

Four guards and two low-level military intelligence officers have made plea deals in the case. Their sentences ranged from no time to 8 1/2 years. No officers have gone to trial, though several received administrative punishment.

Her Family and Friends Speak Out

Spc. England and Spc. Graner posing behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners, giving the "thumbs up" sign
Spc. England and Spc. Graner posing behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners, giving the "thumbs up" sign

Colleen Kesner, a resident from England's hometown, said: "A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq. To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way that girls like Lynndie are raised... Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

Defending England, her mother Terrie England said: "They were just doing stupid kid things, pranks. And what the Iraqis do to our men and women are [is] just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, do they apply to everybody or just us?" The wording of the Geneva Convention, as appealed to by Mrs. England, states clearly, "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated (Article 12). Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It also states in Article 3, that "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" is expressly prohibited.

She added that, according to her daughter, "nothing happened which wasn't ordered by higher up. They are trying to pin all of this on the lower ranks. My daughter was just following orders. I think there's a conspiracy."

Gaza City grave desecration

On May 10, 2004, Swastika-covered posters of (among others) Lynndie England were attached to British and Indian graves at the Commonwealth military cemetery in Gaza City. Thirty-two graves of soldiers killed in World War I were desecrated or destroyed.

England defends actions

In a May 11, 2004 interview with Denver CBS affiliate television station KCNC-TV, England reportedly said that she was "instructed by persons in higher ranks" to commit the acts of abuse for psyop reasons, and that she should keep doing it, because it worked as intended. England noted that she felt "weird" when a commanding officer asked her to do such things as "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile". However, England felt that she was doing "nothing out of the ordinary". (See the interview at [4].) On April 30, 2005, England recanted and admitted her criminal culpability.

Additional unreleased photographs

Members of the United States Senate have reportedly reviewed additional photographs supplied by the Department of Defense which have not been publicly released. There is considerable speculation as to the contents of these photos but until they are released to the public, the speculation cannot be confirmed.

Controversy over photographs

There have been accusations [5] that the Google search engine censored images of Lynndie England from its image search. Google has responded [6] that this is actually caused by delayed indexing and not deliberate censorship.

The Rolling Stones have written a song about her called "Dangerous Beauty" on their album A Bigger Bang which was released on September 6th, 2005.

See also

External links


Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) — the invaluable watchdog that keeps an eye on the doings of Texans like Bush, Tom DeLay, and Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, the chicken magnate at whose West Virginia plant Lynndie England once worked — has sniffed out the details. And so have Texas Monthly and a host of other real fine publications in that state. http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001916.php


Let Us Now Thank Lynndie England
Well, Lynndie England is the fall girl in the prison torture flap, the poster girl for the abuses that occurred in Iraq and--hardly ever mentioned--a former honor student from a small town in West Virginia, a town now hanging its head in collective shame over this picture. Hard to believe such a wisp of a girl might bring down the house of cards the mighty Neocons and their willing bedfellows built on bigger abuses.
Which begs the question: Shouldn't the American media whores who devoted so much time to the deification of Jessica Lynch, now be required to interview at length the female flip side of our little imperial war? If Jessica Lynch was the pure alabaster Joan of Arc, the perfect Barbie doll, homecoming queen from smalltown America, Lynndie England represents her exact opposite, a cigarette-dangling, wise-cracking dame in desert-camo dungarees, and the Pentagon's worst nightmare. Lynndie England--the name itself has a perfect Hollywood ring to it--is the villainess in this public relations nightmare, an otherworldly species that appeared beautiful at first glance but became, as time passed, like the alien progeny of Donald Rumsfeld--a creature so scary and dangerous she almost resembles his own daughter!
But for every Lynndie England about to be devoured, for every enlisted man about to be downtrodden by a lifetime of smalltown shame, how many more supervisors from "other government agencies" (OGA) will escape with their careers intact? Spooks and operatives and highly-paid shadow men from the plethora of intelligence agencies that operate without repercussion or blame. Hell, most of these "supervisors" will probably get promotions! But where, we may ask ourselves, have we seen this unfolding disaster before? Where have we seen such hubris, such disregard for common sense?
If every character in this ongoing sci-fi nightmare appears alien or otherworldly, that's because we've invented them all. The diabolical lies and fabrications by handyman Powell; the squinty, lab scientist reports from Donald Rumsfeld; the pontifications of good and evil from secretive, billionaire investors, Bush and Cheney; the optimistic reports from the dense thicket of danger by gun-toting, rubberstamp Myers and Bremer. Where have we seen such a chilling, disastrous scenario, or such a menagerie of characters before?
Lynndie England is simply the scapegoat for the felonies and lies, for the war crimes and sheer human waste that has finally overtaken and threatens to devour the Neocons and their supporters. Private England represents all the uniformed gunbearers seduced by the slogans of patriotism who were instead doing the grim, dirty work at the instigation of all the mad scientists of America. Go in there, private England, and slap and punch that Velociraptor, while someone takes your picture.
Heap your pity or scorn on Lynndie England if you must--and she deserves it--but reserve even more for the true whores of war. For every Lynndie England with blood on her hands, there were dozens of Ann Coulters and Kathleen Parkers who hastened her there, so deeply embedded in the idea of conquest, bloodlust or vengeance they appeared as willing cheerleaders or as a succubus of war. Ann Coulter (pictured) and the succubus (also pictured but with wings) may share the same diet plan, but how different are they from Lynndie England, who now shoulders ALL the blame for the catastrophic war that now enters its second year?
Parker and Coulter appeared more times in print selling this war than those velociraptors appeared from the weeds in Jurassic Park. A year before the war, here is what Parker wrote of Rumsfeld: "The man has personal power, humor, intellect and a command of the English language that must be envied — or should be — by others in the White House."
The syndicated Orlando columnist continued to heap rose petals at the feet of war-planner Rumsfeld while, somewhere in West Virginia, the earnest England listened to the glowing praise of her recruiter. Parker wrote: "At the reception the war, of course, was the topic of discussion. More precisely, the question was how the government informs the public through the press during wartime. Americans familiar with Rumsfeld's regular press conferences, wherein he explains to reporters the rules of war, already know him to be a straight shooter."
"Does Rumsfeld ever lie to the press? No." Parker continues, her adulation resembling that of fawning fraüleins tossing flowers on Hitler as he passed in his motorcade. And Rumsfeld does not disappoint her. "I've never had any need to lie to the press . . . . You lose so much more if people can't believe what you say . . . . When it comes to sensitive issues . . . we don't lie; we just don't discuss it.'"
Parker and Coulter, earning six or seven figure salaries, expressed no doubts about the war, nor their support for it. When this debacle arrives at the blood-devouring conclusion--like Spielberg's morality play--the Lynndie Englands of the world and her fellow soldiers in the streets of Iraq will be like those poor, nameless fellows wandering in the weeds of Jurassic Park. They'll be the first victims of stupidity, but, sadly, not the most deserving. Let us at least thank Lynndie England for putting the true, perverse and pornographic face to this war--before the fawning media relegates her to the dustbin of history.


George W. Bush-Harriet Miers-Alberto Gonzales-Abu Ghraib CONNECTION

Does Bush need Miers on the Supreme Court to protect Gonzales and all others involved—and perhaps even Miers herself--in Abu Ghraib´s sordid fiasco?
Someday soon, legal cases may arise on America´s Iraqi misadventures like Abu Ghraib. Traditionally, there´s no statute of limitation on crimes against humanity. Such cases can pend for the accuseds´ entire lifetimes. But putting Miers on the bench could ensure such cases are never heard.
Does Gonzales primp wearing the U.S. Attorney General´s morning suit rather than a Justice´s black robe because he oversaw, cleared, and reportedly authored official memorandums claiming the Geneva Conventions´ prohibitions of torture and excesses were inapplicable, "obsolete," and "quaint?"
The same gray eminences whose number Gonzales wanted to join examined his handiwork, and warned that the same "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" Gonzales claims are permissible could make U.S. officials and military leaders subject to the 1996 War Crimes Act.
Sounds like Gonzales has some polishing up to do.

And Gonzales isn´t alone. Miers´ ties to Gonzales are close, going back many years. As Bush´s personal lawyer, Miers reportedly introduced Gonzales to Bush and recommended he be Bush´s General Counsel when Bush became Texas´ governor. The U.S. Senate should pay close attention to how close Miers and Gonzales were then and have since become. Although Miers enjoyed a seemingly lower-level job—Bush´s staff secretary--than Gonzales, her supporters claim she´s long been "the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk." And she reportedly "screens" all Bush´s paperwork.
That means she reads it first. And she decides what´s important.
What did Miers, as Bush´s secretary-lawyer, make of Gonzales´ "torture memos?" Did she add her own legal-eagle touches?
Gonzales and Miers aren´t the only newly glum faces in Washington, D.C. Justice Antonin Scalia was intellectually the late Chief Justice William E. Rhenquist´s rightful heir. But a green
newcomer, John G. Roberts, is now Chief Justice. Why? Think--Scalia´s defiant refusal to recuse himself from Vice President Dick Cheney´s high court case after he´d enjoyed a costly weekend duck hunting with Cheney just three weeks before the hearing.
Will Miers willingly recuse herself on any Bush White House matters, especially those involving Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? She needn´t. Although Title 28, Section 455 of the United State Code sets out criteria for Supreme Court Justices recusal, Rhenquist wrote of Scalia´s duck hunting misadventures: "[T]here is no formal [recusal] procedure for Court review of the decision of a Justice in an individual case…because it has long been settled that each Justice must decide such a question for himself."
Or "herself."
U.S. Senators should think "Abu Ghraib," and think again before voting "yea" on Harriet Miers. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=113614 


Is Harriet Miers a Closet ....?
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, supreme chief of the German armed forces, explained the thinking
behind the Nazis' "Night and Fog" (the term comes from Goethe) decree: "Efficient and enduring
intimidation can only be achieved...by measures by which the relatives of the criminals do not
know the fate of the criminals...These measures will have a deterrent effect because the prisoners
will vanish without a trace and no information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate."
Anyone who doubts the extravagant pain of not knowing what happened to a loved one should talk to
Natalee Holloway's parents. Night and Fog came to the United States when federal agencies built
and filled a global, ad hoc network of prisons and concentration camps during the months following
9/11, and began filling it with Muslims of varying status. Officials promising to update lapsed
visas lured foreign-born residents to immigration offices and arrested them when they showed up.
Captured Taliban soldiers, stripped of their rights under the Geneva Conventions, were thrown
together with civilian shopkeepers sold by local warlords for bounties to the
CIA in Afghanistan, to whom were added anti-communist rebels from China and democracy activists
from Pakistan. Some were shipped to Cuba, where many were tortured, some to death. Others were
delivered for "extraordinary rendition" via covert CIA jets to countries reputed for their
pain-inflicting expertise, including Syria, Yemen and Uzbekistan. No one knows what happened to them. 

Four years after 9/11, the U.S. government still refuses to release information about the
disappeared. We do not know how many there are, where they are being held, how many are dead
and alive, or even their names. The vanished have access to neither their families nor legal
representation. They cannot send or receive mail or packages. Because there was no evidence
against them, none have been charged with a crime. But catching terrorists was never the
purpose of America's new Night and Fog policy. The goal was to instill fear, particularly
among Muslims. It has also worked with other "enemies of the state": since 9/11, "See you
in Gitmo" has become a standard joke among activists on the left.
The legal cover for the Bush Administration's updating of Night and Fog comes courtesy of
then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, since promoted to attorney general. In his
January 22, 2002 memo, for example, Gonzales repeatedly twisted the facts in order to obtain
the result Bush desired.
Gonzales' contradictory linguistic contortions, here to argue that the Taliban were not
covered by Geneva and could thus be vanished into thin air because they were not a viable
government, would be comical if not for the man's chilling willingness to suspend intellectual
honesty along with fundamental human rights: "It is unclear whether the Taliban militia ever
fully controlled most of the territory of Afghanistan. At the time the United States air
strikes began, at least ten percent of the country, and the population within those areas,
was governed by the Northern Alliance."
Since when does 90 percent, or nearly 90 percent, fail to qualify as "most"?
Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee to succeed
Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, replaced Gonzales in November 2004. Has she ever
questioned Gonzales' extreme and bizarre legal opinions justifying the torture, indefinite
detention and disappearing of countless innocent people? We don't know. Her legal opinions
have yet to be released and Senate Republicans, in keeping with the Bush Administration's
obsession with keeping the people's business secret from the people, say they'll fight to
keep them shrouded by the night and fog. 

We know that Miers has chosen not to issue a full-fledged rebuttal of Gonzales'
disappear-'em-and-torture-'em philosophy, which remains in full force at
Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantánamo, Camp Mercury and other giant memory holes. Reports continue
to emerge, most recently from a former Muslim chaplain at Gitmo, that top officials encourage
soldiers to abuse inmates. 

This comes as little surprise, given that Miers' reluctance to rock the boat appears to be
more highly developed than the average striver. "In [a] White House that hero-worshipped
the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that
the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," right-winger David Frum writes
in the National Review.
Senate Democrats and patriotic Republicans should insist on a full review of Miers' advice
to Bush on torture and disappearances before voting on confirmation to the Supreme Court.
No one who agrees with Alberto Gonzales' monstrous contempt for human rights ought to be
elevated to such a powerful post--even if her consent is expressed through tacit silence.


   Did Bush and Rumsfeld know? When? When was Abu Ghraib torture exposed? May, 2004!


Tuesday, May 11, 2004

The Iraq Torture Scandal: Why Bush is to Blame

President Bush may not have had direct knowledge of Iraqi prisoner abuse. But make no mistake, he is to blame. George W. Bush created an environment for abuse in the War on Terror right from the start. By proclaiming his right to detain citizens indefinitely without judicial oversight or even access to an attorney, he sent the message that the normal standards of justice no longer apply. When his administration dismissed the Geneva Convention with regard to Camp X-ray, it sent the message human rights were not a concern. And when Bush shrugs off missing WMD’s by saying it’s good Saddam is gone, he is arguing that the ends justify the means. When the Commander in Chief makes it clear that the rules no longer apply, human rights don’t matter, and the ends justify the means, he opens the door for abuse. George W. Bush may not have held the leash, but he created the culture that made it possible for the horrific conduct and explosive scandal we’re witnessing now. http://theminuteman.blogspot.com/2004/05/iraq-torture-scandal-why-bush-is-to_11.html


Bush & Rumsfeld could be indicted
10/30/2005 3:00:00 PM GMT

If successfully convicted, Bush and Rumsfeld could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death

In a letter sent to George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq, a group of 100 American law professors opposing Iraq war warned the U.S. President that he as well as senior officials at his government could be prosecuted for war crimes if any violation of international humanitarian law happened.

The group demanded warring parties to distinguish between military and civilian areas, only use the level of force that militarily necessary and only use weaponry proportionate to what is being targeted.

"Our primary concern ... is the large number of civilian casualties that may result should U.S. and ‘coalition’ forces fail to comply with international humanitarian law in using force against Iraq," the group, led by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote in the letter that was also addressing the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Reuters reported in January 2003.

Ironically, at that time President Bush asked the Iraqi officers and soldiers to disobey any orders to use weapons of mass destruction in the event of a conflict. "If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal," he said.

According to the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, any violation of the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment, is federal crime, and this for any U.S. national, military or civilian, said an editorial published on globalResearch.

This law is not only applicable to those who carry out such crimes, but to those who order them, know about them, or fail to prevent them from taking place, and this includes both low and senior ranking officials.

The law, moreover, has no statute of limitations, and thus a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

Several reports released over the past year and declassified documents listed numerous cases where detainees held at Abu Ghraib jail near the Iraqi capital and in U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan died as a result of being tortured by the American soldiers. And since this law stipulates that if a prisoner died as a result of torture the penalty could be death sentence, then death penalty should be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning any of the acts that have been carried out in Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan.

Last week, the general in charge of Abu Ghraib prison stated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior ranking administration officials ordered that inhuman treatment and torture as part of a deliberate strategy.

It's been revealed that today, more than a year after Abu Ghraib scandal broke out and inhumane and brutal interrogation methods used against the Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison were uncovered, torture continues at that prison and, more people are still being tortured by the U.S. military personnel worldwide. It seems that Bush’s administration is not even considering or intending to stop those tactics, instead it is trying to found a way that legalizes them or makes them easier.

In January 2002, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo to President Bush saying that America needs to find a way to sidestep the Geneva Convention as it puts top officials in a serious situation; bearing in mind prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2441. And thus Gonzales prepared a document trail that can be used to prove that “top administration officials knowingly created a policy of torturing prisoners, and that such a policy could reasonably have been expected to result in the death of some prisoners,” according to GlobalResearch.

Recent statement by Abu Ghraib general accusing top officials of involvement in the crimes that were carried out at the jail is a key evidence for convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, as well as other administration officials for violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. And if successfully convicted, they could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.



The War Crimes Act of 1996: Bush, Rumsfeld could be Indicted under US Law

The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.

18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or -- if a single prisoner dies due to torture -- death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

Here's where it gets interesting. The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy.

It has also recently come out that, even after the torture at Abu Ghraib hit the news, torture still continues at that prison and, indeed, the U.S. is still torturing people worldwide. Even to the casual observer, it is obvious that the administration has no plans to stop, but has instead been working tirelessly to make it easier to carry out torture in the future.

Let's recap. We now know that torture in Iraq was ordered by top officials, and that torture is continuing, notwithstanding the administration's claims that it was only "a couple of bad apples" that were responsible for Abu Ghraib. Making a potential prosecutor's job easier, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying that America should opt out of the Geneva Convention because top officials have to worry about prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 2441. By attempting to sidestep the Geneva Convention, Gonzales created a document trail that can be used to prove that top administration officials knowingly created a policy of torturing prisoners, and that such a policy could reasonably have been expected to result in the death of some prisoners.

The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq.

The Abu Ghraib general's recent statements about torture coming from the top is an important piece of evidence for convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and a host of other top administration officials for violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. Upon conviction, they could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.

Additionally, violation of the war crimes act almost certainly constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" which would allow impeachment of such officials. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/


President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says

by NewStandard Staff



Among a new batch of documents rights groups have forced the gov't to release, a Bureau communication refers to a presidential Executive Order endorsing some forms of torture witnessed at Iraq prison.

Dec 21, 2004 - Repeated references in an internal FBI email suggest that the president issued a special order to permit some of the more objectionable torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib and other US-run prison facilities around Iraq. The email was among a new batch of FBI documents revealed by civil rights advocates on Monday. Other documents describe the initiation of investigations into alleged incidents of torture and rape at detention facilities in Iraq.

The email, which was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, represents the first hard evidence directly connecting the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and the White House. The author of the email, whose name is blanked out but whose title is described as "On Scene Commander -- Baghdad," contains ten explicit mentions of an "Executive Order" that the author said mandated US military personnel to engage in extraordinary interrogation tactics.

An Executive Order is a presidential edict -- sometimes public, sometimes secretive -- instituting special laws or instructions that override or complement existing legislation. The White House has officially neither admitted nor denied that the president has issued an Executive Order pertaining to interrogation techniques.

The specific methods mentioned in the email as having been approved by the unnamed Executive Order and witnessed by FBI agents include sleep deprivation, placing hoods over prisoners’ heads, the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called "stress positions," and the employment of work dogs. One of the more horrifying tools of intimidation, Army canines were used at the prison to terrorize inmates, as depicted in photos taken inside Abu Ghraib.

The correspondence is dated May 22, 2004 -- a couple of weeks after images of torture and humiliation at the prison broke in the world media -- and was sent between FBI officials attempting to clarify the Bureau’s position on the terminology to use when categorizing and reporting such techniques. The author repeatedly states those techniques were, at least temporarily, permitted under the mysterious presidential directive. The author also wrote that Pentagon policy had since restricted most of the techniques to require specific authorization from the chain of command.

"As stated, there was a revision last week in the military’s standard operating procedures based on the Executive Order," the letter reads. "I have been told that all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive Order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted." The author goes on to recount having seen a military email that said certain techniques -- including "stress positions," the use of dogs, "sleep management," hoods, "stripping (except for health inspection)," and blaring music -- cannot be used without special authorization.

The author wonders if techniques that fall within the scope of the Executive Order should be referred to as "abuse," since they are technically legal. Unless otherwise advised by the Bureau, the email continues, agents "will still not report the use of these techniques as ‘abuse’ since we will not be in a position to know whether or not the authorization for these tactics was received from the aforementioned officials."

The author does believe that interrogation methods that involve "physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching" clearly constitute "abuse," suggesting they are not within the scope of the repeatedly referenced Executive Order.

The email says that FBI personnel operating at Abu Ghraib witnessed but did not participate in prisoner interrogations that involved actions approved by the Executive Order. That statement upholds separate documentation also obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests backed by a lawsuit on the part of the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

As reported by The NewStandard, documents revealed in October showed that FBI agents had witnessed abuses like those mentioned in the email, in addition to many more severe actions.

The email that was revealed on Monday is the first official document to state that the Oval Office was the source of directives permitting abuse and torture.

After the ACLU released the documents, White House, Pentagon and FBI officials told reporters that the author of the email was mistaken, and that the order was not an Executive Order, but a Defense Department directive. All sources refused to be identified in news reports.

The White House does not appear to have ever officially denied that President Bush issued an Executive Order specifying interrogation techniques, though none has been made public. The ACLU and other organizations involved in forcing the release of documents regarding prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib as well as prison camps in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have demanded the White House "confirm or deny the existence of such an order," according to an ACLU press release issued on Monday.

Last June the president insisted that the only authorization he has issued with regard to interrogation procedures was that American personnel "would conform to US law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations."

But as the unidentified FBI official noted in his email, techniques are made legal under US law if and when the president issues an Executive Order rendering them so.

Asked more directly less than two weeks later if President Bush had ever approved particular prisoner handling methods, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan responded, "In terms of interrogation techniques related to what the military may carry out in Guantánamo Bay or Iraq, those are determinations that are made by the military, and we expect that those techniques fit within the policies that this President has instituted."

The president and his legal advisors have repeatedly said that the US government neither condones nor commits torture. The Bush administration’s conservative definition of torture, as expressed at a June 22 press briefing by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, incorporates only acts bearing "a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering."

If White House statements are to be taken at face value, then, they still leave considerable room for the possibility that President Bush has authorized specific acts that civil libertarians and international law consider torturous, including the methods listed in the FBI email.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States Congress has ratified, defines "torture" far more broadly as including "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."

Also included among the newly released documents were notices regarding the initiation of criminal investigations pertaining to abuse of Iraqi detainees.

One of the documents is a memo stating that the US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division had commenced an inquiry "regarding the alleged rape of [a] juvenile male detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison." The name of the investigating officer or unit has been blanked out, and no identifying information is offered pertaining to the case.

Another document notifies Valene Caproni of the FBI’s Office of the General Counsel, that two FBI agents who were stationed in Iraq were to be interviewed by Army investigators looking into the alleged torture of an Iraqi detainee. Gary Bald of the Bureau’s Counterterrorism Division wrote the email message, in which he notes suspicious military paperwork on a detainee whose name is redacted. He also writes that the two FBI special agents were with the military police unit that held the Iraqi and signed receipts claiming to have seen him before he was transferred to Abu Ghraib for further interrogation.

While the email states that the prisoner does not mention the FBI in his complaint, he described his treatment in troubling detail. "They tortured me and cuffed me in an act called the scorpion and pouring cold water on me," the email quotes the detainee’s complaint as saying. "They tortured me from morning until the morning of the next day, and when I fell down from the severe torture I fell on the barbed wires, and then they dragged me from my feet and I was wounded and, and they punched me on my stomach."

© 2004 The NewStandard



FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques

December 20, 2004
Contact: media@aclu.org 
Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department’s Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses
NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.
"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."
The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.
Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."
The document also says that no "intelligence of a threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the "FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the Defense Department’s actions have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail’s author writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in order to protect the FBI."
"The methods that the Defense Department has adopted are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive," said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. "It is astounding that these methods appear to have been adopted as a matter of policy by the highest levels of government."
The June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to the FBI Director is heavily redacted. The legible portions of the document appear to describe an account given to the FBI’s Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who had "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings." The document states that "[redacted] was providing this account to the FBI based on his knowledge that [redacted] were engaged in a cover-up of these abuses."
The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed government agencies to comply with a year-old request 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. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.
Other documents released by the ACLU today include:
An FBI email regarding DOD personnel impersonating FBI officials during interrogations. The e-mail refers to a "ruse" and notes that "all of those [techniques] used in these scenarios" were approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. (Jan. 21, 2004)
Another FBI agent’s account of interrogations at Guantánamo in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent states that the detainees were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." (Aug. 2, 2004)
An e-mail stating that an Army lawyer "worked hard to cwrite [sic] a legal justification for the type of interrogations they (the Army) want to conduct" at Guantánamo Bay. (Dec. 9, 2002)
An e-mail noting the initiation of an FBI investigation into the alleged rape of a juvenile male detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. (July 28, 2004)
An FBI agent’s account of an interrogation at Guantánamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights. (July 30, 2004)
The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court again this afternoon, where they will seek an order compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an internal investigation into detainee abuse. Although the ACLU has received more than 9,000 documents from other agencies, the CIA refuses to confirm or deny even the existence of many of the records that the ACLU and other plaintiffs have requested. The CIA is reported to have been involved in abusing detainees in Iraq and at secret CIA detention facilities around the globe.
The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of CCR.
The documents referenced above can be found at:
U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq

October 24, 2005

CONTACT: media@aclu.org
CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence Personnel Implicated
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated.  The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.
“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.  “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable.  America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA. 
According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides.   Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel.  The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.”  An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.” 
While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too. 
The records reveal the following facts:
A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood.  The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.   Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported.  (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay.  In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq.  Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.”  He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.  Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq.  A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object.  New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.” 

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.”  A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.”  New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.  (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq.  His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)
The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.
“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU.  “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”
The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case. 
As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib.  That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.
The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia .
The documents released today are available online at


Dozens of Abu Ghraibs
Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA - U.S. human rights groups denounced before the U.N. Human Rights
Committee that there are perhaps dozens of secret detention centres around the
world where Washington is holding an unknown number of prisoners as part of its
"war on terror".

Torture of Iraqi POWs

Bush, Torture and American Values in Iraq



The Alberto Gonzalez Torture Memo Story

Famous World Trials
Nuremberg Trials
1945 - 1949


Is Jessica Lynch a fake?




This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski Met Israeli Interrogator in Iraq

America's Heroes!
Mother Cindy Sheehan & Son Casey

Gonzales - Enron - Bush - Taliban - John O'Neill Connections

American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..."

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

Email: apfn@apfn

Hit Counter