| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Army report on al-Qaida accuses Rumsfeld |
| 2006-04-15 |
| Donald Rumsfeld was directly linked to prisoner abuse for the first time yesterday, when it emerged he had been "personally involved" in a Guantánamo Bay interrogation found by military investigators to have been "degrading and abusive". Human Rights Watch last night called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate whether the defence secretary could be criminally liable for the treatment of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi al-Qaida suspect forced to wear women's underwear, stand naked in front of a woman interrogator, and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash, in late 2002 and early 2003. The US rights group said it had obtained a copy of the interrogation log, which showed he was also subjected to sleep deprivation and forced to maintain "stress" positions; it concluded that the treatment "amounted to torture". However, military investigators decided the interrogation did not amount to torture but was "abusive and degrading". Those conclusions were made public last year but this is the first time Mr Rumsfeld's own involvement has emerged. According to a December report by the army inspector general, obtained by Salon.com online magazine, the investigators did not accuse the defence secretary of specifically prescribing "creative" techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place. "Where is the throttle on this stuff?" asked Lt Gen Schmidt, an air force officer who said in sworn testimony to the inspector general that he had concerns about the duration and repetition of harsh interrogation techniques. He said that in his view: "There were no limits." The revelation comes at a critical time for Mr Rumsfeld. He is under unprecedented scrutiny for his management of the Iraq war, after six former generals in quick succession called for his resignation. The questions reached such a pitch by the end of the week that George Bush took the unusual step of issuing a personal note from Camp David in Mr Rumsfeld's defence. "I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions," the president wrote. "Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation." And, responding to the generals, Mr Rumsfeld said in an al-Arabiya TV interview yesterday: "If every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defence, it would be like a merry-go-round." However, in the wake of the inspector general's report, Human Rights Watch said: "The question at this point is not whether secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it's whether he should be indicted. General Schmidt's sworn statement suggests Rumsfeld may have been perfectly aware of the abuses inflicted on Mr al-Qahtani." The Pentagon also issued a statement in response to publication of the report. A spokeswoman said: "We've gone over this countless times, and yet some still choose to print fiction versus fact. Twelve reviews, to include one done by an independent panel, all confirm the department of defence did not have a policy that encouraged or condoned abuse. To suggest otherwise is simply false." So far, only junior US officers have been charged and convicted for a string of prisoner abuse scandals since the Bush administration launched its "global war on terror", but rights activists have accused the administration of opening the way for the use of torture in 2002 by relaxing the constraints of the Geneva conventions. Gen Bantz Craddock, head of Southern Command, overruled the investigators' recommendation that Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, who ran the Guantánamo camp in 2002, be admonished for the techniques employed. Gen Miller was transferred to Abu Ghraib prison, and took with him his aggressive approach to interrogations. The investigators found Mr Rumsfeld was "talking weekly" with Gen Miller about the al-Qahtani interrogation. In December 2002, the defence secretary approved 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use on Mr al-Qahtani, including forced nudity, and "stress positions". However approval was revoked in 2003. Gen Miller insisted he was unaware of details of the interrogation, but Gen Schmidt said he found that"hard to believe" in view of Mr Rumsfeld's evident interest in its progress. Gen James Hill, former head of Southern Command, recalled Gen Miller recommending continuation of the interrogation, saying "We think we're right on the verge of making a breakthrough." Gen Hill then passed on the request to Mr Rumsfeld. "The secretary said, 'Fine,'" Gen Hill remembered. Backstory The US defence secretary has faced many calls to resign over Guantánamo, the invasion of Iraq and abuses at Abu Ghraib prison - but the pressure he faces now comes from a weighty new quarter: six generals recently retired from the military he runs. Retired general Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training Iraqi security forces, sparked the current round of condemnation in a New York Times article on March 19. On April 2, Anthony Zinni told a TV interviewer the US was "paying the price for the lack of credible planning" in Iraq. Seven days later, Lt Gen Gregory Newbold, a former member of the joint chiefs of staff, tore into the administration's "casualness and swagger... the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions". On Wednesday, John Batiste, a former infantry commander, added his voice, and on Thursday his colleague John Riggs concurred. Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, brought the total to six yesterday, telling the New York Times Mr Rumsfeld had demonstrated "absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam". Mr Rumsfeld is understood to have offered to resign at least twice while in charge at the Pentagon, but both times President George Bush turned him down. |
| Posted by:john |
| #7 Al-Guardian - 'nuff said. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-04-15 22:15 |
| #6 Does anyone actually believe what they read in the NYT? I know, I know, plenty of people buy the Enquirer and scarf up every word. At least people who believe what they read in the Enquirer know they are stupid. The only people more stupid than the ones who believe that the NYT is real news are the ones who were too stupid to sell their stock short over a year ago and the only ones stoopyder than that are the ones who still delude themselves that tomorrow's NYT stock will be worth more than yesterday's news. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-15 21:17 |
| #5 The problem was not shooting them on the battlefield which is clearly ok per Geneva Conventions which create an incentive to conduct armed conflict in a civilized manner by allowing harsh punishments for dirtbags who do not. Now the ACLU types are involved. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-04-15 20:11 |
| #4 they are entitled to execution, immediate and on the front. Being non-uniformed, they aren't subject to Geneva's niceties nor do they observe the same with their captives. The question of "vigorous" has been debated a lot here. I, for one would apply the truncheons and pliars. Others disagree. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-15 19:45 |
| #3 What exactly is the status of these vermin under the Geneva conventions? Since they are armed civilians, captured on the battlefield, are they entitled to any protection? Can't they be summarily executed? What about aggressive interogation techniques? |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-15 19:27 |
| #2 Screw it. We were attacked. We are at war because THEY attacked OUR civilians - the latest in a series of attacks on our government via embassy bombings, among other things. They hid behind being "non-state actors" without a visible authority to hold responsible. They saw the heads off of living people who die in extended agony -- and boast and laugh about it. Screw Human Rights Watch. This is not tea time. This is a war to the death. I didn't used to feel this way. I do now. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-04-15 19:22 |
#1 In other words, it's Human Rights Watch turn to jump on Rumsfeld. There's nothing new in this story, just the repeat of old accusations. Here's the nut of this story:
Expect this part to be ignored, and the idiotic claims from HRW to be played up. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-15 19:20 |