posted May 11, 2004 12:57 PM            

Unlike members who have no credibility to protect, Joan Swirsky must deal with facts as they are known and not the touchy feely notions about human nature some would substitute for facts.

posted May 11, 2004 01:58 PM            

GENEVA (May 11) - Up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested ''by mistake,'' according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. It also says U.S. officers mistreated inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison by keeping them naked in dark, empty cells.

Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was widespread and routine, the report finds - contrary to President Bush's contention that the mistreatment ''was the wrongdoing of a few.''

While many detainees were quickly released, high-ranking officials in Saddam Hussein's government, including those listed on the U.S. military's deck of cards, were held for months in solitary confinement.

Red Cross delegates saw U.S. military intelligence officers mistreating prisoners under interrogation at Abu Ghraib and collected allegations of abuse at more than 10 other detention facilities, including the military intelligence section at Camp Cropper at Baghdad International Airport and the Tikrit holding area, according to the report.


The 24-page document cites abuses - some ''tantamount to torture'' - including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of ''imminent execution.''

''These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'''

High-ranking officials were singled out for special treatment, according to the report, which the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed as authentic after it was published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

''Since June 2003 over a hundred 'high value detainees' have been held for nearly 23 hours a day in strict solitary confinement in small concrete cells devoid of daylight,'' says the report. ''Their continued internment several months after their arrest in strict solitary confinement constituted a serious violation of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions.''

It did not say who the detainees were, but an official who discussed the report with the Red Cross told The Associated Press they include some of the 55 top officials in Saddam's regime named in the deck of cards given to troops.


The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said detainees held at Baghdad International Airport include many of the 44 ''deck of cards'' suspects already captured. It was not clear if Saddam was at the airport, but the Red Cross has said it visited him in coalition detention somewhere in Iraq last month.

The high-value detainees were deprived of any contact with other inmates, ''guards, family members (except through Red Cross messages) and the rest of the outside world,'' the report says.

Those whose investigations were near an end were said to be allowed to exercise together outside the cells for 20 minutes twice a day.

The report says some coalition military intelligence officers estimated ''between 70 percent and 90 percent'' of the detainees in Iraq ''had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units.''

The agency said arrests tended to follow a pattern.

''Authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property,'' the report says.

''Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people,'' it says. ''Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles.''

It was unclear what the Red Cross meant by ''mistake.'' However, many Iraqis have claimed U.S. forces arrested them because of misunderstandings, bogus claims by personal enemies, mistaken identity or simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

One former detainee who claims he was abused, Haider Sabbar Abed, said he was arrested in July when the driver of the car he was in was unable to produce proper papers at a U.S. checkpoint. He was not released until April 15.

In one operation, U.S. special operations troops detained nearly the entire male population of the village of Habbariyah, ranging in age from 81 to 13, apparently to prevent terrorists from slipping across the border from Saudi Arabia. The 79 men were held for weeks.

Language problems sometimes led to detainees' ''being slapped, roughed up, pushed around or pushed to the ground,'' according to the Red Cross report. ''A failure to understand or a misunderstanding of orders given in English was construed by guards as resistance or disobedience.''

The report says that in coalition prisons ''ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation'' of the inmates ''with their interrogators.'' The delegates saw detainees kept ''completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness.''

''Upon witnessing such cases, the ICRC interrupted its visits and requested an explanation from the authorities,'' the report says. ''The military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained that this practice was 'part of the process.'''

This apparently meant detainees were progressively given clothing, bedding, lighting and other items in exchange for cooperation, it says.

The report says the Red Cross found evidence supporting prisoners' allegations of other forms of abuse during arrest, initial detention and interrogation - including burns, bruises and other injuries.

Once detainees were moved to regular prison facilities, the abuses typically stopped, it says.

The report also cites widespread abuse of power and ill-treatment by Iraqi law enforcement officers under the coalition, including extorting money from people in their custody by threatening to hand them over to coalition authorities. Under the Geneva Conventions, the coalition is responsible for the Iraqi officers' behavior, the report says.

The Red Cross has emphasized that the report was only a summary of its repeated attempts in person and in writing from March to November 2003 to get U.S. officials to stop abuses. Those earlier interventions by the Red Cross far preceded the Pentagon's decision to investigate after a low-ranking U.S. soldier stepped forward in January.

The Geneva-based organization gave its report to coalition forces in February. The prisoner abuse erupted into an international scandal in recent days after the publication of disturbing photographs from Abu Ghraib.

The Red Cross said it wanted to keep the report confidential because it saw U.S. officials making progress in responding to their complaints. Still, the American reaction was far slower than that of British officials, according to the report.

It says the Red Cross informed the commander of British forces in April 2003 of ''ill-treatment'' by military intelligence personnel in interrogating Iraqis at Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. ''This intervention had the immediate effect to stop the systematic use of hoods and flexi-cuffs in the interrogation section of Umm Qasr.''

posted May 11, 2004 02:06 PM            

Does that work both ways? Cause when I see Jwhop flinging the venom right back, people cry about it

posted May 11, 2004 02:21 PM            

All I can say is that if this keeps on going in this direction, the United States will end up being sanctioned by the rest of the World!

posted May 11, 2004 02:28 PM            

Your perception that it must suck to be Donald Rumsfeld is absurd. Rumsfeld enjoys a 70% or better approval rate in recent polls and has the complete confidence of a majority of Americans and the President of the United States.

posted May 11, 2004 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

I think that your being a little delusional Isis, because I don't see how I said anything against Jwhop

---

And yet, less than 24 hours ago, here in this very thread, you said:

quote:

---

did you miss my contentious, snide, antagonistic way of doing things lately?

---

THEN when I asked, what's up w/ the constant antagonizing of Jwhop, you replied:

quote:

---

I dont know Isis,maybe because of things like this that sicking us,perhaps?

---

I think perhaps you are the delusional one, for you can't even recall your own words whilst in the very same thread they're written in. As I've said before, your words indict you well enough that other's here don't have to do anymore than point them out...

posted May 11, 2004 02:42 PM            

Hmmmm 70% you say, *nods head with aproval* well that didn't take anytime to shoot that all down!

posted May 11, 2004 02:43 PM              

Your chivalrous defense of the maiden is charming but I have no problem with Ms Swirsky. Never heard of her or read anything by her up until your post. Maybe I am wrong but it seems her advice is, "hey, it happens, it's no big deal". I would agree with her that it happens but I vehemently disagree that it is not a big deal. Is she correct in guessing that the Left will take advantage of the situation? Of course they will. That's politics. The Right would (and has) done the same. But that doesn't make the original action acceptable. If your take on the article was different, please share. I would welcome another opinion. But please stay calm.

By the way, is it a "fact" that Hillary Clinton has a "jaundiced eye"? Or is that just Ms Swirsky's touchy feely emotional conclusion? And what's up with the "anti-American leftists"? Leftists are out there a plenty but anti-American? Please point one out.

posted May 11, 2004 03:00 PM            

I don't really see what there is to discuss. I think Tink hit some nails on the head, I think the article has some nuggets of truth. I think we can all agree that torture, regardless of who is doing it is a bad thing. So what is the issue here? Whether Rummy should step down? Or Bush? I mean, which is responsible? It can't be both, because they're lambasting Rummy for not notifying the White House before the pics broke, so if one is indicting Rummy on that count, than one can hardly hold Bush responsible. So which is it? I mean, what is the argument here? Nobody is saying that it was a good thing, but let's put it into perspective-

Nude photos in which no one is identified due to coverings over their heads, which bruises the ego, or beheadings, beatings, etc, which does a lot more than bruise the ego. Is that justification? No. If murder and rape have come into it as I've heard mention of, that's something different entirely, but how do you think they get info out of unwilling prisoners? With a warm cuppa and a nice soft chat? It's called psychological torture - keep them up for hours, beat down their will by making them be dominated by women, cold water splashed on them, there's all sorts of methods. What are we to do conversely? Keep asking nicely while the people w/ info that could prevent a terror attack sit silently refusing to talk?

There's no argument that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and that these things should never have gone on. But IMO there's needs to be some perspective here, otherwise it appears to me yet another partisan attempt to crucify the administration just for the sake of it...

posted May 11, 2004 03:03 PM              

Hmm, let's see you bash The Army Times, sweetheart, hmmm?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0510-06.htm

Here is the relevant bit, for you dittohead kids here that have trouble actually reading a full article that is composed of common sense...

"This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level", said The Army Times lead editorial..."This was failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war".

Seriously, come with it, smart guy. And even if you do...what do you know? Nothing! You have never been, nor ever will be in any position or title to truly comment intelligently on the sad state of U.S-Mideast affairs, other than the title of Lindaland Dittohead. That is all you will ever be, which is both sad and unfortunate, for you, or course, your family, and of course the knowflakes. I at least have a law degree, and if nothing else, it is a testament to my discipline and a total diss to any chump here who thinks they can even say that I don't at least have half a brain. I outclass you, jw-ho, plain and simple, and you will always be a dittohead, nothing more, nothing less, in my not-so-humble onion. And my onions are big enough to make piddle's eyes water She can't restrain herself from jumping on my back, that is too obvious, always was...

So what is your response to the lead editorial in The Army Times, girls (jw-ho, included)...?

I imagine in advance your sad, smarmy, totally incoherent response would go something like this, with, of course, my editorial comments in brackets:

Well, that's just a few unhappy apples in a cart of oranges [thinking, of course, that the "few bad apples" defense still holds water, and that the apple/oranges analogy will confuse and distract thoughtful minds] Mr. Rumsfeld is the tree to life (and oranges), and if you shake the tree, the bad apples fall off...er, oranges...bad fruits, gone...see?! Army Times, Army Schmimes..."

posted May 11, 2004 03:33 PM            

Poor little Pidaua, she thinks that the Nazis are going to help her people get back they're land. Too bad she doesn't realize that Central and South America thought of the same thing of those Imperialist to do they're bidding against the Communist and look where they're now,ask Jackie how great it is to be under the law in Rio de Janero,Brazil. So how is El Salvador doing lately, oh I forgot,most of the crap they pull,goes unreported anyway!

posted May 11, 2004 03:52 PM            

...yeah,Tink I don't see what their is to argue about when there is no arguement!