US approved use of dogs on Guantanamo prisoners

  1. last update: wednesday, june 23, 2004. 10:32am (aest) us marines escort a detainee in guantanamo bay. (reuters)



    us approved use of dogs on guantanamo prisoners

    us defense secretary donald rumsfeld approved the use of stress positions, hoods, forced nudity, and dogs to instill fear during interrogations of prisoners at a detention center in guantanamo bay, cuba, in december 2002, newly released secret documents show.

    the white house release of a thick file of newly declassified papers tried to demonstrate that mr bush and his top aides, in setting policy on interrogation methods, insisted that detainees at guantanamo bay, cuba, be treated humanely.

    the documents showed defence secretary donald rumsfeld rescind many of those weeks later and approve less aggressive techniques in april of 2003.

    two australians, david hicks and mamdouh habib, have been held in guantanamo bay for more than two years.

    treatment of the guantanamo detainees, including interrogation methods, has come under scrutiny following a scandal over abuse and sexual humiliation of iraqi prisoners by us forces at abu ghraib prison near baghdad.

    president george w bush said he has never ordered the torture of iraqi or al qaeda prisoners.

    "let me make very clear the position of my government and our country: we do not condone torture. i have never ordered torture. i will never order torture. the values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being," mr bush told reporters at the white house.

    democratic senator patrick leahy of vermont accused the white house of releasing a "self-serving selection" of documents.

    "the stonewalling in the prison abuse scandal has been building to a crisis point," he said.

    mr rumsfeld originally approved aggressive interrogation tactics at guantanamo bay after military leaders there complained in a memo that "current guidelines for interrogation procedures at gtmo limit the ability of interrogators to counter advanced resistance".

    the guantanamo bay leaders requested permission to use a wet towel and dripping water to induce "the misperception of suffocation" and the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing".

    in response, in december 2002 mr rumsfeld approved tactics such as forcing a detainee to stand up for up four hours, forced isolation for up to 30 days, deprivation of light, use of 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, "inducing stress by use of detainee's fears (eg, dogs)" and use of mild physical contact that did not cause injury.

    a pentagon legal brief recommending the use of the tactics argued that the proposed techniques were likely to pass constitutional muster as long as they were applied "in a good faith effort and not maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm".

    "the federal torture statute will not be violated as long as any of the proposed strategies are not specifically intended to cause severe physical pain or suffering or prolonged mental harm," the legal brief said.

    white house legal counsel alberto gonzales played down some of the documents produced by lawyers as "abstract legal theories" that "do not reflect the policies the administration ultimately adopted".

    the methods actually used, according to a memo, fell somewhat short of what mr rumsfeld approved, such as 20-hour interrogations and deprivation of light and forced shaving.

    mr rumsfeld abruptly rescinded most of the aggressive tactics in a january 15, 2003, order and said if any of them were believed needed a request should be forwarded to him for a decision with a "thorough justification" and a "detailed plan for the use of such techniques".

    then in april 2003, mr rumsfeld outlined a new list of interrogation techniques that permitted significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee, "sleep adjustment," "changing the diet of a detainee" with no intended deprivation of food or water, and isolation of detainees.

    an august 1, 2002, justice department memo detailed how to avoid violating us and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners.

    white house officials insisted the broad policy was that prisoners should be treated humanely, but included in the documents was an active discussion of how far interrogations could go without being called torture.

    "we're going to be aggressive in our interrogations. there's no question about that," mr gonzales said. he insisted that the united states would not engage in torture and said the administration uses the definition of torture provided by congress as "a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering".

    the documents outlined previous and current techniques for nearly 600 al qaeda and taliban prisoners now at guantanamo bay, most taken in afghanistan.

    a february 7, 2002, memo from mr bush to top members of his administration said al qaeda and taliban detainees were to be "treated humanely and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles" of the geneva convention.

    mr gonzales denied mr bush's determination contributed to the abuses at abu ghraib. "we categorically reject any connections," he said.

    a top pentagon lawyer, daniel dell'orto, said it was clear from the start that the geneva convention would apply in iraq.

    he said any abuses at guantanamo were punished.

    he cited an incident in which a female interrogator took off her blouse, kept her t-shirt on, sat on a detainee's lap "as part of her interrogation technique" and ran her hands through his hair. she was suspended from duties for 30 days.

    --reuters

    in other developments:

    • the mysterious "20th hijacker" believed to be missing from the group of terrorists that took control of us passenger airplanes on september 11, 2001 is being held in guantanamo bay, the new york times reported today. (full story)
    • us officials have vastly overstated the value of the nearly 600 detainees being held at the us naval base in guantanamo bay, according to a new york times report. (full story)
    • lawyers representing guantanamo bay detainees, including australian david hicks, are claiming harassment by the us government. (full story)
    • the united states is holding terrorism suspects in more than two dozen detention centres worldwide, about half of which operate in total secrecy, according to a new human rights report. (full story)
    print email
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...6/s1138256.htm
    •  
  2. 64 Comments

  3. by   TexasPoodleMix
    I have no problem with it whatsoever. These aren't jailbirds from Mayberry. they are terrorists who behave like wild animals. I say let the dogs on them.
  4. by   gwenith
    What happened to "innocent until proven guilty???
  5. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from gwenith
    What happened to "innocent until proven guilty???
    We are not talking about American citizens here. We are taliking about terrorists. They do not have the rights we do.
    Embarrassing them, scaring them with dogs or however, not a problem.
  6. by   gwenith
    No, you are talking about Australian and English citizens who were detained without charge (let alone trial) for 2 years!!!!

    This is harming your international standing.
  7. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from gwenith
    No, you are talking about Australian and English citizens who were detained without charge (let alone trial) for 2 years!!!!

    This is harming your international standing.
    This is still besides the point. They found there way to be a guest at Guantnamo Bay, one only finds himself there at the invitation of the US military.
    Enough said.
    It's a military issue. They can take care of it and they sure as to heck do not need a bunch of bleeding heart liberals coloring the story with hatred for America.
  8. by   gwenith
    Dixiedi I have been posting these stories so that the average American can see for themselves how this is being reported overseas. I am not responsible for the writing in the reports.

    Now can you explain to me how a goverment owned news service in Australia can be a
    bunch of bleeding heart liberals coloring the story with hatred for America
    Just last night I was watching Lateline on SBS and it talked of how not only the prisoner abuse has been putting America in a bad light but the dismissal of this as "not Americans = not worth worrying about" is putting the individual American in a bad light.

    I LIKE America but I have seen how you are not presented with a good media. We do get CNN and a couple of others and I will admit that they look more like an entertainment show than a news service. The worst thing that has happened is when they decided that news WAS entertainment - it isn't it is news and should be reported on the facts.

    This is why I stick to the Aust goverment website garner news from. It is monitored for bias.
    Last edit by gwenith on Jun 22, '04
  9. by   TexasPoodleMix
    I'd rather be bitten by a dog or hang around naked than be beheaded, which is exactly what those "prisoners" would love to do to any american.....
  10. by   donmurray
    It's not about what "they" would do, It's about what we do, and our standards of behaviour, which in this case are sickeningly low.
  11. by   gwenith
    It is not just Americans who are being beheaded - the latest was a south Korean national.

    It isn't just about standing around and dogs either - the numbers I have heard quoted were 37 killed by torture.
  12. by   SmilingBluEyes
    I am appalled both by this going on in Guantanamo and by our OWN citizen's callous and uncaring feelings about it. We are and should be above this. I am disgusted, Gwenith.
  13. by   warrior woman
    I'm right with ya Deb. We may be seen as the light of the world, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a dark history of our own. We always tend to forget that part.
  14. by   gwenith
    What is worrying is that so many are failing to see the significance of this. What if this were to happen to them or one of their own. Spirited away in the night to a detention centre - why - because we decided that you are a terrorist - but I am not - who called me that - our military so it must be true - can I see a lawyer - no you cannot you are in a military base and we need to question you.............

    Not all those held at Guantanamo were from the theatre of war Habib was in Pakistan and two of the British detainees were arrested boarding a plane in Africa!!!!

close