Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho in Whitehall approved 'gloves-off' interrogation after 9/11?
The Gibson inquiry into mistreatment of detainees is uncomfortable reading for former intelligence officers and ministers
Ian Cobain
snip
Twelve years later I found myself with the British forces moving through Basra, clearing out pockets of opposition, sometimes dying in the process. At Saddam Hussein's palace on the banks of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, I turned a corner and came across a long row of Iraqi prisoners. They had hoods over their heads, their hands were plasti-cuffed behind their backs and they were kneeling bolt-upright in the sun.
An hour later I returned: the prisoners were still there, kneeling in the same positions.
Later that day a couple of army medics sidled up and confided that they had just been called upon to revive a prisoner who was being interrogated in a basement by British troops. There were a few prisoners down there, they explained, it smelt of vomit and shit and blood, and whatever was happening had caused one man to lose consciousness. The medics were clearly unsettled.
It is difficult, at times, for reporters in war zones to comprehend what is happening in front of them. A clearer view, the elusive "big picture", can be grasped sometimes only from a distance, or after the passage of time.
But even then it was clear to me that there must be a reason for the different approaches to prisoner-handling between 1991 and 2003. In time, I could see that the reason involved not just issues around the training and preparedness of British troops, but instructions and signals passing down through the chain of command.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/peter-gibson-inquiry-torture-interrogation
Ian Cobain
snip
Twelve years later I found myself with the British forces moving through Basra, clearing out pockets of opposition, sometimes dying in the process. At Saddam Hussein's palace on the banks of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, I turned a corner and came across a long row of Iraqi prisoners. They had hoods over their heads, their hands were plasti-cuffed behind their backs and they were kneeling bolt-upright in the sun.
An hour later I returned: the prisoners were still there, kneeling in the same positions.
Later that day a couple of army medics sidled up and confided that they had just been called upon to revive a prisoner who was being interrogated in a basement by British troops. There were a few prisoners down there, they explained, it smelt of vomit and shit and blood, and whatever was happening had caused one man to lose consciousness. The medics were clearly unsettled.
It is difficult, at times, for reporters in war zones to comprehend what is happening in front of them. A clearer view, the elusive "big picture", can be grasped sometimes only from a distance, or after the passage of time.
But even then it was clear to me that there must be a reason for the different approaches to prisoner-handling between 1991 and 2003. In time, I could see that the reason involved not just issues around the training and preparedness of British troops, but instructions and signals passing down through the chain of command.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/peter-gibson-inquiry-torture-interrogation
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 602 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who in Whitehall approved 'gloves-off' interrogation after 9/11? (Original Post)
JohnyCanuck
Dec 2013
OP
grasswire
(50,130 posts)1. kick to read later
bvar22
(39,909 posts)2. Donald Rumsfeld (Sec of Defense) was asked the same question RE: Abu Ghraib.
The Secretary of Defense answered,
"The Chain of Command was murky".
I was stunned.
Anyone who has had ANY experience with The Military KNOWS
the the Chain of Command is NEVER "murky".
I couldn't believe those Senators let him off the hook with THAT.
When I was a Boy Scout Tenderfoot in 1957,
I could recite the "Chain of Command" all the way to the Commander in Chief.
The #1 RULE of The Military:
"There is ALWAYS someone in Command,
and you BETTER know who that is."
spanone
(135,887 posts)3. rumsfeld was lying.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)4. Sadly your Boy Scout days are gone for good. Now days lots of things
can happen to make the chain of command "murky" especially when contractors are involved. Those in command in some cases insist on it.