Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 03/18/2006 View Fri 03/17/2006 View Thu 03/16/2006 View Wed 03/15/2006 View Tue 03/14/2006 View Mon 03/13/2006 View Sun 03/12/2006
1
2006-03-18 Home Front: WoT
NY Slimes: Before/After Abu Ghraib, a U.S. Unit Abused Detainees
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-18 18:39|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Thank you, Captain America, for reminding me again why I don't read the NYT anymore. Newspaper of record, indeed!
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-18 19:14||   2006-03-18 19:14|| Front Page Top

#2 By early 2004, both the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. had expressed alarm about the military's harsh interrogation techniques.

The C.I.A.'s Baghdad station sent a cable to headquarters on Aug. 3, 2003, raising concern that Special Operations troops who served with agency officers had used techniques that had become too aggressive. Five days later, the C.I.A. issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations. Separately, the C.I.A. barred its officers from working at Camp Nama but allowed them to keep providing target information and other intelligence to the task force.

The warnings still echoed nearly a year later. On June 25, 2004, nearly two months after the disclosure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, an F.B.I. agent in Iraq sent an e-mail message to his superiors in Washington, warning that a detainee captured by Task Force 6-26 had suspicious burn marks on his body. The detainee said he had been tortured. A month earlier, another F.B.I. agent asked top bureau officials for guidance on how to deal with military interrogators across Iraq who used techniques like loud music and yelling that exceeded "the bounds of standard F.B.I. practice."


Nothing new here. Nothing that hasn't been dealt with. The only question in my mind, is the leak from the FBI or the CIA? Foolish me.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-18 19:52||   2006-03-18 19:52|| Front Page Top

23:58 Alaska Paul
23:56 Eric Jablow
23:55 Alaska Paul
23:50 anonymous2u
23:46 anonymous2u
23:08 Frank G
23:02 Whiskey Mike
22:57 CrazyFool
22:52 CrazyFool
22:46 wxjames
22:40 lotp
22:37 BA
22:33 2b
22:32 closedanger
22:30 2b
22:30 closedanger
22:27 Captain America
22:26 2b
22:24 BA
22:19 Seafarious
22:18 BA
22:15 gromgoru
22:09 lotp
22:09 J. Peterman









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com