Politics
Politics Blog

Abuse: This 2004 photo shows a US soldier holding a dog in front an Iraqi detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. A Senate report released Tuesday said tactics such as using dogs for intimidation were first approved as interrogation techniques in Guantánamo Bay before they showed up in Abu Ghraib.

(The Washington Post/AP)

Photos (1 of 1)

Report says top officials set tone for detainee abuse

Abusive interrogation techniques in Abu Ghraib followed approval of their use in Guantánamo, says a report by Senate Armed Services Committee.

By Gail Russell Chaddock  |  Staff writer/ April 22, 2009 edition

Washington

Senior US officials, not rogue underlings, were responsible for the abusive treatment of detainees in US custody.

That’s the bottom line of a newly declassified, bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee released Tuesday night.

The report is likely to amplify growing calls among Democrats on Capitol Hill for an accounting of Bush-era abuses that includes top policymakers and the lawyers who advised them.

“The record established by the committee’s investigation shows that senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in a statement Tuesday night.

“Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses,” he added.

Senator Levin has asked the Justice Department to launch a process “to establish accountability of high-level officials, including lawyers.”

The 18-month inquiry was approved unanimously by the Armed Services panel in November 2008, but it could not be released until vetted by the Pentagon. Some phrases and paragraphs in the 232-page report are still blacked out, but the panel is negotiating release of the remaining redacted material.

In a narrative that reads like a film script, the report documents how coercive methods used by Chinese communists to elicit false confessions from American POWs during the Korean War made it into interrogation rooms for detainees in US custody.

A key element was the redefining of the legal framework for the treatment of detainees after the 9/11 attacks. Drawing on more than 200,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents, the report tracks a legal paper trail and its consequences on the ground.

Policy changes came from the top and set a tone for the abuses on the ground that followed, the report concludes.

“Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO [Guantánamo Bay],” the report said.

Standards became subjective

The narrative starts with President Bush’s Feb. 7, 2002, declaration that the Third Geneva Convention – which sets international standards for the treatment of POWs – did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. The statement included the caveat that the US armed forces shall “continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention.”

But interviewees said the standard was subjective and tough to apply in the field.

“The decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in US custody,” the report concludes.

High-level policy statements authorizing aggressive interrogation techniques and the influence of training techniques from the US military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) program – banned on paper for use in US military interrogations but not in practice – also eroded standards of humane treatment.

“The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training – such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals – was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in US custody,” the report concludes.

Systemic abuse?

The report’s findings contrast with the Pentagon’s initial response to the gritty images coming out of Abu Ghraib in 2004, which was to blame the grunts. In a May 4, 2004, briefing, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz suggested that prisoner abuses by soldiers were only because of “a few bad apples.”

He added, “The people who were responsible will be held accountable, and if there’s anything systemic, it would be corrected.”

The Armed Services Committee report finds that there were in fact systemic abuses, and those responsible for them have yet to be sanctioned.

It’s a conclusion the Pentagon disputes.

“The Army field manual on interrogations is quite clear: It strictly prohibits the use of SERE techniques against individuals. They have never been authorized or approved for use against detainees,” says Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

Since 2001, the Pentagon has conducted more than a dozen internal investigations into detainee mistreatment that have resulted in some 430 disciplinary actions, ranging from prison sentences and bad-conduct discharges to forfeiture of pay and allowances.

“All credible allegations of abuse were investigated and individuals are held accountable for their actions,” says Commander Gordon.

In fact, there is a lot of overlap between the conclusions in the congressional report and the 492 recommendations on detainee treatment produced by the investigations at the Pentagon.

But the Armed Services panel is calling for higher-level accountability. “The abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own,” the report says.

( More politics stories )

Comments

1. gloria sward | 04.22.09

I am so sorry to see the headline and the picture of a “poor” terrorist looking at a dog. I thought the Monitor would be above following the leads of the other papers. This is why I don’t subscribe anymore. If I want trash, I will read the local papers. I want to see the Monitor back to the way it was. No Bias, independent and not following the leadings of failed papers. This is why our Monitor is now a weekly paper.

2. Rick Onderdonk | 04.22.09

Thanks for the factual and objective coverage of this sad period in our governments history. Having a son in the military, I especially do not want him to be treated this way if he were to become a POW. In order to gain back America’s respect and honor as a unique example of justice and fairness in this world, it would be appropriate to bring those responsible to account. In the previous administration’s war on terror this kind of treatment only served to recruit more individuals who would do harm to our country.

3. ryan | 04.22.09

I am so tired of political arguments. GET OVER IT. It happened and we need to move forward.

4. Richard O. Johnson | 04.22.09

Ms. Sward should watch popular TV or listen to “talk radio” before suggesting that the Monitor is sensationalist. The photo of the prisoner being intimidated by the leashed dog is a statement of fact, something not to be ignored especially since it seemed to represent official U.S. policy at the time.

5. Cindy | 04.22.09

Gloria and Ryan: Soldiers were tried for this behavior while the government claimed innocence. This is exactly what news is supposed to be reporting. Our government claimed one thing while they were doing another. And, you’re just fine with that? Really?

Some prisoners caught in Iraq were rounded up in sweeping raids. Because Americans don’t speak the language, we didn’t know who was guilty and who wasn’t. Those that were mistreated were transformed into our enemies. Does that really make us safer?

6. Tip ‘hat | 04.22.09

Sometimes even better than the informative articles, it’s a pleasure to peruse the comments section to gold and dross.

7. GOPHater | 04.22.09

As I’ve been saying for years now, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, torture, violations of international law, and violations of the U. S. Constitution.

8. Stephen | 04.22.09

@Sward

Where is the bias in this report? It’s not an opinion piece. It’s outlining the report, quotes from people on the AS committee and the Pentagon, and includes criticism from the Pentagon. The photo is pretty well known and associated with US interrogations since 9/11.

The only opinion I read from the author is that it’s likely to increase Democrats calling for more action, and the report reads “like a film script”.

9. Tip O’Hat | 04.22.09

Sometimes even better than the article that prompts them, the comments section can offer us real gold, or — often in equal measure — pure dross. The first four comments here are an amazing microcosm. Mr. Onderdonk (#2) and Mr. Johnson (#4) are full of subtle ideas, elegantly written. Ms. Sward (#1) and ryan (#3) are full of cranky ideas, ineptly written (…”not following the leading of failed papers.”).

To #2 & #4, many thanks. To #1 & #3, better luck next time.

10. Jim Cook | 04.22.09

To Ms. Sward: So the prisoner in the orange suit is a “terrorist”. And you know this how? US forces in Iraq swept up thousands of people in house-to-house raids, often based on little else than someone happened to be the right age to be an insurgent. Some were swept because of accusations by people with a grudge or a personal ax to grind, or just seeking a reward. Those thousands languished in various prison compounds, sometimes for years with no charges and little effort to determine if they presented any kind of a threat. The odds are far greater that the terrified man in the picture is someone yanked out of bed in a midnight raid without a clue why, than that he is some sort of terrorist presenting a real threat.

11. John Brooks | 04.23.09

And what of the young American solider, who was following orders? These experiences are not forgotten. Did he return home ashamed of himself and his country, or trained to hate and perhaps to abuse his wife and children?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

  By clicking "Submit Comment", you agree to our Terms of Service.

We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.

Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.

Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.

Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.