Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross

[babylonsister]

Didn't the nazis do this, too? :grr:

Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers



WASHINGTON — The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.

"We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. At that same meeting, Beaver also appeared to confirm that U.S. officials at another detention facility — Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — were using sleep deprivation to "break" detainees well before then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved that technique. "True, but officially it is not happening," she is quoted as having said.

A third person at the meeting, Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, disclosed that detainees were moved routinely to avoid the scrutiny of the ICRC, which keeps tabs on prisoners in conflicts around the world.

"In the past when the ICRC has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD (Defense Department) has 'moved' them away from the attention of the ICRC," Fredman said, according to the minutes.

The document, along with two dozen others, shows that top administration officials pushed relentlessly for tougher interrogation methods in the belief that terrorism suspects were resisting interrogation.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41394.html

[seemslikeadream]

1. The world is watching and waiting Nancy

Step down step out of the way. You may have shame but you have no right to shame us all



LAW SCHOOL TO ORGANIZE BUSH WAR CRIMES TRIAL

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34171


By Sherwood Ross

A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover .

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."


more:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/guantanamo.usa


The sanctioning of torture at Guantanamo is a story not only of abuse and crime but also of a cover-up by the US administration
All comments (2) Philippe Sands guardian.co.uk, Tuesday June 17 2008 Article historyThis is an abridged version of testimony given by Philippe Sands to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The full text can be read on the committee's website.

A few weeks ago I published an article in Vanity Fair, The Green Light, and my new book Torture Team: the Rumsfeld Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. These tell an unhappy story: the circumstances in which the US military was allowed to abandon President Lincoln's famous disposition of 1863, that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty". This committee will be familiar with those events: it was a focus of the judicial confirmation hearings for William J Haynes II in July 2006. You will recall that on December 2, 2002, on the recommendation of Mr Haynes, Secretary Rumsfeld authorised the use of new, aggressive techniques of interrogation on Guantanamo Detainee 063. It is now a famous memo, the one in which he wrote: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

My book tells the story of that memo. The circumstances in which it came to be written, relied on and rescinded, and how the techniques migrated. It is a snapshot of the subject of this hearing. To write the book I journeyed around America, meeting with many of the people who were directly involved. I met a great number, and was treated with a respect and hospitality for which I remain very grateful. Over hundreds of hours I conversed or debated with, amongst others, the combatant commander and his lawyer at Guantanamo. From these and many other exchanges I pieced together what I believe to be a truer account than that which has been presented by the administration. In particular, I learned that in the case on which I focused – a snapshot – the aggressive techniques of interrogation selected for use on Detainee 063 came from the top down, not from the bottom up; that they did not produce reliable information, or indeed any meaningful intelligence; and that they were opposed by the FBI.

My account is that of the report recently published by the Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ), although I go further on some points of detail. I learnt that the concerns of FBI personnel at Guantanamo were communicated directly to Mr Haynes' office, in telephone conversations in November and December 2002 between Mr Bowman and, first, Mr Bob Dietz; second, Mr Dan Dell'Orto (who was then Mr Haynes' deputy and is now his acting successor); and third, Mr Haynes himself. Mr Bowman told me it was "a very short conversation , he did not want to talk about it all, he just stiff-armed me". My conclusion, taking into account my conversations with Mr Haynes, is that he was able to adopt that approach because by then – contrary to the impression he sought to create when he appeared before this committee – he had knowledge of the contents of the DOJ legal memos written by Jay Bybee and John Yoo on 1 August 2002.

On the basis of these conversations I believe that the administration has spun a false narrative. It claims that the impetus for the new interrogation techniques came from the bottom-up. That is not true: the abuse was a result of pressures driven from the highest levels of government. It claims the so-called Torture Memo of August 1, 2002 had no connection with policies adopted by the administration: that too is false, as the memo provided cover for Mr Haynes. It claims that in its actions it simply followed the law. To the contrary, the administration consciously sought legal advice to set aside international constraints on detainee interrogations, without apparently turning its mind to the consequences of its actions. In this regard, the position adopted by the Pentagon's head of policy at the time, Feith, appears most striking.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_treatment


Military lawyers objected to harsher interrogation


Military lawyers warned against the harsh detainee interrogation techniques approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, contending in separate memos weeks before Rumsfeld's endorsement that they could be illegal, a Senate panel has found.

The investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee also has confirmed that senior administration officials, including the Pentagon's then-general counsel William "Jim" Haynes, sought information on a program involving military psychologists early on to devise the more aggressive methods — which included the use of dogs, making a detainee stand for long periods of time and forced nudity, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released. Details, including the names of the service lawyers who objected to the interrogation techniques, were to be discussed at an open committee hearing Tuesday.

Rumsfeld's December 2002 approval of the aggressive interrogation techniques and later objections by military lawyers have been widely reported. But the November protests by service lawyers had not, and the interest by Pentagon civilians in military psychologists has surfaced only piecemeal.









This is what Philippe Sands was talking about at the hearing

There seems to be a direct connection between torture at Guantanamo and the beginning of 24

Individuals were watching and influenced by the TV program 24

TV show had many friends at Guantanamo.

Three weeks after the beginning of 2nd season of 24 the torture began.


Philippe Sands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUICm1VH-rQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j38GxxE2CBY


The Green Light: Attorney Philippe Sands Follows the Bush Administration Torture Trail

A new exposé in Vanity Fair by British attorney Philippe Sands reveals new details about how attorney John Yoo and other high-ranking administration lawyers helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons. According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and other top officials personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Sands joins us in our firehouse studio.



Philippe Sands: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPAGNNsrwUw



Jimmy Carter: Talks George Bush & war crimes at Hay Festival
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrWBY2hO6vA

When pressed by Philippe Sands...on Bush's recent admission that he had authorized interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, 'productive life - in our country'" after he leaves the White House. Sands later said that he had "understood that to be 'clear confirmation' that, while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, 'what happened outside the country was another matter entirely.'


Phillipe Sands Discusses Torture and U.S. Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6IU755uFM

On Bill Moyers Journal, human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands discusses his new book on how the U.S. came to abandon the Geneva Convention and accept torture. Sands says Bush administration officials are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions.



Rep. Mike Pence: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTla3-JZhnM

Philippe Sands attempts to enlighten Rep. Pence as to why torture is wrong during his appearance before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules


Rep.John Conyers: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLCNypjK6k

Philippe Sands responds to Rep. Conyers question as to what avenues of inquiry the committee should undertake and expounds upon his testimony before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Addington was the leader of the pack, went to Guantanamo himself




Rep.Artur Davis: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sst5vMpOFx4

David Rivkin tries to claim that the IRA was a different threat but Rep.Davis throws his flawed logic back in his face. Philippe Sands also pointedly rebukes Rivkin assertions. Discussion of Presidental pardons to exonerate torture policies employed is hypothetically touched on. From hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Rep.Issa & Rep.Ellison: Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQKZ5WaTWdA

Philippe Sands responds to the slick and sly Rep.Issa and details his thoughts further upon question by Rep. Ellison during hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.

[madeline_con]

2. "terrorism suspects were resisting interrogation."

No shit, Sherlock! Who wouldn't try to resist that kind of treatment? The thing that irks me the most is that the Pentagon had already established that no reliable information can be obtained through toture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Ah yet one more violation and ahem WAR CRIME

when are we indicting these assholes?

[babylonsister]

4. That IS a war crime, isn't it. And they'll get away with it. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well given that the papers from Iran Contra are still

gathering dust...

[enough]

5. McClatchy has been doing exemplary jounalism on these issues lately.

[L. Coyote]

10. Is that why management is laying off so many of them?

[G_j]

11. more, 'If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong'

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/41388.html

Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008

'If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong'
Following are excerpts from some of the documents released today by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"The CIA is not held to the same rules as the military. In the past when the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD has 'moved' them away from the attention of the ICRC. Upon questioning from the ICRC about their whereabouts, the DOD's response has repeatedly been that the detainee merited no status under the Geneva Convention. The CIA has employed aggressive techniques on less than a handful of suspects since 9/11.

"Under the Torture Convention, torture has been prohibited by international law, but the language of the statutes is written vaguely. Severe mental and physical pain is prohibited. The mental part if explained as poorly as the physical. Severe physical pain described as anything causing permanent damage to major organs or body parts. Mental torture described as anything leading to permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality. It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong.

" . . . Any of these techniques that lie on the harshest end of the spectrum must be performed by a highly trained individual. Medical personnel should be present to treat any possible accidents. . . . When the CIA has wanted to use more aggressive techniques in the past, the FBI has pulled their personnel from the theatre.

" . . . if someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used, regardless of cause of death, the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental. Everything must be approved and documented."

..more..

[Selatius]

7. I have a hunch none of these officers will see the inside of a prison, much less the top leadership.

If the next crop of Dem leaders say that we should stop investigating and move on to heal the country, I'm gonna tune out and drop out of politics for a while.

[G_j]

8. Kick!

&Rec

[williesgirl]

9. They all belong behind bars, right AFTER IMPEACHMENT. rec'd