Wash. Times claim that Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib were "completely unrelated" contradicted by bipartisan Senate report
SUMMARY: In an editorial, The Washington Times asserted that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo "are completely unrelated," adding that "there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo." In fact, a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that military "interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO," and that those "policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq."
A February 24 Washington Times editorial that criticized President Obama's order to close the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo within a year asserted that Obama "lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course -- there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo." Contrary to the Times' assertion that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo are "completely unrelated," a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report released jointly by chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member Sen. John McCain concluded that "Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO [Guantánamo]. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq."
The report also stated that "[i]nterrogation 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."
From the Senate Armed Services Committee report:
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of [Department of Defense general counsel] Mr. [William] Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 15: Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. 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. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
From the February 24 Washington Times editorial:
This reinforces the conclusion that Mr. Obama's stance on Guantanamo was less principled than political.
He had pledged to close Guantanamo as one of his first acts in office, mainly as a sop to his anti-war support base. At his Feb. 6 meeting with the families of the victims of terrorism, the president played up the symbolism of closing Guantanamo more than the substance. He lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course - there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo - but in the fantasy world of the anti-war radicals they are akin to the Gulag or Auschwitz, so Guantanamo had to go.
but in the fantasy world of the anti-war radicals
So now the anti-war, anti-torture crowd is being called "radical"? Astounding truthiness, even for the Moonie Times.
Yes, they are also known as anti-american, anti-family, anti-safety ... just like they've always been known as. It would be funny if it wasn't so true, and dangerous to everyone else in this country. Pay attention to what Obama told you last night...it's time for you to take responsibility for your actions.
You see that's why the think Hollywood is so liberal. In the movies it's the BAD GUYS that torture, while the GOOD GUYS want tolerance and peace. The the BAD GUYS that spy on the populace, detain citizens without charge, and seek to rule with abosolute paower and only a rubber-stamp judiciary to keep them in check. Meanwhile the GOOD GUYS fight from things like FREEDOM, and LIBERTY, EQUALITY and FAIRNESS... you know: those horrible anti-american values!
I sweat these people must watch "It's a Wonderful Life," and root for Mr.Potter, only to get disappointed in the end when George Bailey "escapes justice."
The latest evidence has emerged from hearings at Fort Meade about two of those low-level Abu Ghraib guards who are charged with using dogs to terrorize Iraqi detainees. On Wednesday, the former warden of Abu Ghraib, Maj. David DiNenna, testified that the use of dogs for interrogation was recommended by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison who was dispatched by the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib in August 2003 to review the handling and interrogation of prisoners. On Tuesday, a military interrogator testified that he had been trained in using dogs by a team sent to Iraq by Gen. Miller.
In statements to investigators and in sworn testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Miller denied that he recommended the use of dogs for interrogation, or that they had been used at Guantanamo. "No methods contrary to the Geneva Convention were presented at any time by the assistance team that I took to [Iraq]," he said under oath on May 19, 2004. Yet Army investigators reported to Congress this month that, under Gen. Miller's supervision at Guantanamo, an al Qaeda suspect named Mohamed Qahtani was threatened with snarling dogs, forced to wear women's underwear on his head and led by a leash attached to his chains -- the very abuse documented in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
The court evidence strongly suggests that Gen. Miller lied about his actions, and it merits further investigation by prosecutors and Congress. But the Guantanamo commander was not acting on his own: The interrogation of Mr. Qahtani, investigators found, was carried out under rules approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002. After strong protests from military lawyers, the Rumsfeld standards -- which explicitly allowed nudity, the use of dogs and shackling -- were revised in April 2003. Yet the same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller. "We understood," Maj. DiNenna testified, "that [Gen. Miller] was sent over by the secretary of defense."
Seems pretty obvious to me that misconduct at the two prisons was "related."
Excellent post. I wonder how the Replutocrats will deny it.
the washington times misrepresenting and lying about facts....hmmmmmm is that really a surprise?
How can anyone believe anything good could come out of anything concerning Rumsfeld..'We know where the Weapons of Mass Destructions are, we just can't find them.' Donny Rumsfeld..To believe anything from this guys' mouth makes one a fool.
Why lie anymore about Gitmo and Abu...the truth is already out.
Don't forget, he also said he knew exactly where they are.
Who physically plunks down their change and actually buys this rag?
my sister might, She has birds in her cage who make a lot of doo-doo..
I should ignore the temptation, but I won't. You might want to check your syntax a little. The implication is that she lives in a cage (her cage?) with birds that make a lot of doo-doo. I have a sister I don't get along with, but I can't state anything like that.
She has two birds in her bird cage she keeps at her house. I accept your correction with some humility. And my apologies to my sister whom i also don't get along with but love dearly.
Aren't they ( or were they ) not run by american forces ?
The Washington Times is not a legitimate newspaper. It's a gop-slop propaganda organ. Why pretend that it's anything more than that?
The "Wash Times" is recognized by most people who actually live back here as being nothing more than a rag run by a religious nut who thinks that republiCANTS are much too liberal. That philosophy also means that democrats have cloven hoofs, the moon is made of green cheese, and pigs make trans-atlantic flights. Wearing a tin foil hat while reading the Wash Times is highly recommended as a guard against losing your mind. Any "conclusion" they publish should be reviewed with the foregoing facts in mind.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!