Autopsy reports reveal
homicides of detainees in U.S. custody
"FREE LYNNDIE ENGLAND:
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
it came from someone high in the chain of command..
Maybe Cheney >>>> Rumsfelt for sure.I would bet on that...
Abusive Correspondence: Send any abusive
rants you might have to:
"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.....
Lynndie England was a 'patsy' for Bush, Rumsfeld and Gonzales!
10/27/05 ...FREE LYNNDIE
ENGLAND, THE CHARLES GOYETTE SHOW
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”
Segment || Download
Watch 128k stream
Watch 256k stream
DO NOT GO ANY FURTHER UNTIL
HAVE HAVE LISTENED TO
THE LAST FIVE MINUTES OF THE ABOVE RADIO SHOW.... SORRY!!!!
The Abu Ghraib Scandal Cover-Up? -
Iraqis Being Abused by US
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
Prison Abuse Report http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Prison_abuse_report.pdf
24 Page Red Cross Report
Iraqis Abused by U.S. Personnel -
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
THE TRUTH AND THE LIE ABOUT THE
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
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Spc. England holding a leash attached to a
prisoner collapsed on the floor, known to
the guards as "Gus"
Lynndie Rana England (born
1982) is a
reservist, one of several
soldiers convicted by the
U.S. Army in connection with the
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in a
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
psychological abuse on
prisoners of war.
England faced a general
January 2005 on charges of
conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and
assault consummated by
battery. The formal charges did not mention the word
although many commentators have so described her
2005, England agreed to plead guilty to abuse
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
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
2005, when she entered her guilty plea. On
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
England has been sentenced to three years for her crimes
and given a dishonorable discharge.
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
England moved with her family to
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
England joined the Army Reserve in Cumberland in
2001 while she was a junior at Frankfort High School
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
2004, at Womack Army Medical Center on Fort Bragg.
News accounts of the birth referred to Graner as
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
- 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
- Four counts of maltreating Iraqi detainees; and
- One count of dereliction of duty.
The other charges were dropped. These charges
- One count of an
indecent act by forcing Iraqi detainees to
- 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
North Carolina on
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
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
 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
Colorado-based civilian lawyers, who say that during
the trial they may call up to 100 witnesses, including
Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld and
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
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
At her retrial, England was convicted on
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
Her Family and Friends Speak Out
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
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
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
Gaza City grave desecration
Swastika-covered posters of (among others) Lynndie
England were attached to
Indian graves at the
Gaza City. Thirty-two graves of soldiers killed in
World War I were desecrated or destroyed.
England defends actions
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
.) 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
 that the
Google search engine
censored images of Lynndie England from its
image search. Google has responded
 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
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
Monthly and a host of other real fine publications in that state.
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
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
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
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."
U.S. Senators should think "Abu Ghraib," and think again before voting
"yea" on Harriet Miers.
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
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
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
disappear-'em-and-torture-'em philosophy, which remains in full
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
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?
The Iraq Torture Scandal: Why Bush is
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.
Bush & Rumsfeld could
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
It has also recently come out that, even after the
torture at Abu Ghraib hit the news, torture still
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
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
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.
President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department’s Methods "Torture,"
Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for
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,
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
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
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
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
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
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
The documents released today are available online at
Dozens of Abu Ghraibs
GENEVA - U.S. human rights groups denounced before the U.N. Human Rights
Committee that there are perhaps dozens of secret detention centres around
world where Washington is holding an unknown number of prisoners as part of
"war on terror".
Torture of Iraqi POWs
Bush, Torture and American
Values in Iraq
The Alberto Gonzalez
Torture Memo Story
Famous World Trials
1945 - 1949
Is Jessica Lynch a fake?
THE REAL REASON WE ARE AT WAR!
TIME MAGAZINE NOVEMBER 13, 2000 - Page 34