posted                      

quote:

---

Torture at Abu Ghraib Followed CIA's Manual
by Alfred W. McCoy
�THE PHOTOS from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison are snapshots not of simple brutality or a breakdown in discipline but of CIA torture techniques that have metastasized over the past 50 years like an undetected cancer inside the US intelligence community. From 1950 to 1962, the CIA led secret research into coercion and consciousness that reached a billion dollars at peak. After experiments with hallucinogenic drugs, electric shocks, and sensory deprivation, this CIA research produced a new method of torture that was psychological, not physical -- best described as "no touch" torture.
The CIA's discovery of psychological torture was a counterintuitive breakthrough -- indeed, the first real revolution in this cruel science since the 17th century. The old physical approach required interrogators to inflict pain, usually by crude beatings that often produced heightened resistance or unreliable information. Under the CIA's new psychological paradigm, however, interrogators used two essential methods to achieve their goals.
In the first stage, interrogators employ the simple, nonviolent techniques of hooding or sleep deprivation to disorient the subject; sometimes sexual humiliation is used as well.
Once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move on to a second stage with simple, self-inflicted discomfort such as standing for hours with arms extended. In this phase, the idea is to make victims feel responsible for their own pain and thus induce them to alleviate it by capitulating to the interrogator's power. In his statement on reforms at Abu Ghraib last week, General Geoffrey Miller, former chief of the Guantanamo detention center and now prison commander in Iraq, offered an unwitting summary of this two-phase torture. "We will no longer, in any circumstances, hood any of the detainees," the general said. "We will no longer use stress positions in any of our interrogations. And we will no longer use sleep deprivation in any of our interrogations."
Although seemingly less brutal, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more crippling than physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to cruelty and lasting emotional problems.
After codification in the CIA's "Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual in 1963, the new method was disseminated globally to police in Asia and Latin America through USAID's Office of Public Safety. Following allegations of torture by USAID's police trainees in Brazil, the US Senate closed down the office in 1975.
After it was abolished, the agency continued to disseminate its torture methods through the US Army's Mobile Training Teams, which were active in Central America during the 1980s. In 1997, the Baltimore Sun published chilling extracts of the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that had been distributed to allied militaries for 20 years. In the 10 years between the last known use of these manuals in the early 1990s and the arrest of Al Qaeda suspects since September 2001, torture was maintained as a US intelligence practice by delivering suspects to foreign agencies, including the Philippine National Police, who broke a bomb plot in 1995.
Once the war on terror started, however, the US use of no-touch torture resumed, first surfacing at Bagram Air Base near Kabul in early 2002, where Pentagon investigators found two Afghans had died during interrogation. In reports from Iraq, the methods are strikingly similar to those detailed in the Kubark manual.
Following the CIA's two-part technique, last September General Miller instructed US military police at Abu Ghraib to soften up high-priority detainees in the initial disorientation phase for later "successful interrogation and exploitation" by CIA and military intelligence. As often happens in no-touch torture sessions, this process soon moved beyond sleep and sensory deprivation to sexual humiliation. The question, in the second, still unexamined phase, is whether US Army intelligence and CIA operatives administered the prescribed mix of interrogation and self-inflicted pain -- but outside the frame of these photographs. If so, the soldiers now facing courts-martial would have been following standard interrogation procedure.
For more than 50 years, the CIA's no-touch methods have become so widely accepted that US interrogators seem unaware that they are, in fact, engaged in systematic torture. But now, through these photographs from Abu Ghraib, we can see the reality of these techniques. We have a chance to join fully with the international community in repudiating a practice that, more than any other, represents a denial of democracy.

---

quote:

---

"By contrast, the mistreatment in the Abu Ghraib images was renegade behavior that had never been allowed under any circumstances, defense officials said. They claimed that the changes announced Friday were unrelated to the international uproar over the abuses in Iraq, saying they resulted simply from a periodic review of military procedures."

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Find Out Who Got the MPs Involved
�
By David DeBatto
�
As I began writing this column on Tuesday, the news broke about the beheading in Iraq of an American civilian contractor, Nicholas Berg.
�
This was a not unexpected, but still an absolutely horrific result of the release of the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison last week. I have no doubt that in the coming days, weeks and months, we will witness still more such brutal acts in response to the prison abuse scandal. As I have stated since this story first broke, my concern was not so much about the severity of the abuse in the eyes of Americans, but the perception and reaction of the Arab world to this incident. The execution of Mr. Berg is the first known Arab response.
�
However, I am continually disheartened to hear people compare the Abu Ghraib scandal with other atrocities committed by Iraqis against Americans or even their own people. They are all missing the mark. There is no comparison whatsoever between the kind of treatment one receives at the hands of any Third World government or terrorist organization and the treatment within an American-run prison.
�
So what? How does that in any way justify brutalizing prisoners in U.S. custody? They treat us badly so when we capture them we get to issue some "payback" or "street justice" on naked, unarmed prisoners and then take pictures to prove how "bad" we are? I think not.
�
What I really want to discuss, however, is the breakdown in leadership that allowed this incident to happen in the first place. Much has been said recently about the lack of communication between Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the 800th MP Brigade commander and Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the 205th MI Brigade. According to all the documents and interviews I have read thus far, there was a frago (fragmentation order) issued on Nov. 19, 2003 authorizing the 205th to assume operational command of Abu Ghraib from the 800th MP Brigade.
�
According to Karpinski, she disagreed with the directive and voiced her concerns to both Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, military commander of Iraq, and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the previous commander of GTMO who issued his own report on conditions at Abu Ghraib late last year. Miller has recently been appointed to replace Karpinski as commander of all U.S.-run prisons in Iraq. According to Karpinski, all of her concerns about an apparent conflict of missions with MI running Abu Ghraib were ignored and Pappas continued to run the prison as he saw fit. That included, according to Karpinski, prohibiting her from visiting the two prison wings housing the prisoners deemed by MI to be HVT, or High Value Targets.
�
Miller's report, completed last September, also included recommendations to get the MPs more involved in facilitating interrogations, working more closely with MI in the process. They should, he recommended, handle them in a way that "sets the conditions for successful interrogation." The military police that have thus far been charged at Abu Ghraib have said that all they were doing were following orders given to them by MI. to "soften up" the prisoners.
�
One MP even stated that she was told to make their life "hell" in order to make them more receptive to questioning. Interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, light deprivation and noise deprivation have also been discussed in the context of this investigation and questions as to their validity and even lawfulness have been raised.
�
Let me say that while I fully support all of the inquiries currently underway into the deplorable behavior at Abu Ghraib, I sincerely hope that they do not permanently hamstring the ability of our interrogators and MI soldiers to obtain vital intelligence that may save the lives of U.S. soldiers in the future. To be more precise, I hope that the apologists and anti-American do-gooders within our own government do not force the evisceration of our military intelligence-gathering capabilities at this critical time in the GWOT. God knows that we have enough to fix in that department already, especially with HUMINT, without any further incompetent meddling.
�
Let's be serious about one thing: interrogations are not job interviews or encounter sessions to find one's self. They are just that � a lawful, although invasive (yes, that's right all you social workers) personal space-violating kind of experience meant to obtain vital pieces of information that can and has saved the lives of American servicemen and women. Conducted in a controlled environment by trained interrogators (not Military Police), the kind of methods described above are perfectly legitimate and often successful. They do not, however, included the laying on of hands, use or threatened use of weapons or dogs, or photographing prisoners with the exception of approved photos for counterintelligence purposes.
�
MPs must work with MI where prisoners of intelligence value are concerned. However, the MP's function starts and ends with the confinement, transportation and related care of the prisoners. Period. Softening up, "hell" making, photographing, sodomizing, beating, posing with dead bodies, forced sexual acts, etc. are not in their job description.
�
If, and I stress if, anyone in their chain of command or any MI officer or NCO or civilian contractor ordered or recommended, or was aware of and did nothing to prohibit that they commit any of those war crimes (and they are war crimes), then the person or persons that gave that order or made that recommendation is just as guilty as the MP that carried out the order or recommendation, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That applies to everyone in the chain of command, no matter how high it goes.
�
I pray we do not let the enlisted soldiers and NCOs at Abu Ghraib take the fall for what is obvious to everyone as a massive leadership failure at the highest levels of our military establishment.
�
Contributing Editor David DeBatto is a retired Army staff sergeant and Counterintelligence Special Agent who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom where he was injured in combat. He is currently writing a novel based upon his military service. He can be reached at [email protected]. Send Feedback responses to [email protected].

---

quote:

---

"Ban the use of private civilian corporate contractors in interrogation and any direct contacts with prisoners or detainees held by the United States. These are essential governmental functions under established rules of military, domestic and international law. You would do well to examine the corporate contracts in Iraq for waste, corruption, non-performance and favoritism - before the media gets there."

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
How does a Colonel prohibit a GENERAL from visiting anything?

---

I wonder that myself; also about the reports of contracters giving orders to soldiers in the prison as well. My impression is the chain of command got really screwed up somewhere along the line.
TSN, I've seen about 3 to 4 different spellings of the name; I was just using Abu Ghabi because it was easy to remember. Oh well as the Italians say: "The translator is a traitor".

--------------------
The best way to predict the future is to create it.

posted                      

quote:

---

William Lawson, the uncle of Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick, one of the soldiers named in the report who is currently facing a court martial, told CorpWatch that his nephew told the family that the company employees were partially responsible for the abuses.
"He tried to complain and that he was told by superior officers to follow instructions from civilians, contract workers interrogating the Iraqi prisoners. They said go back down there. Do what the civilian contractors tell you to do and don't interfere with them and loosen these soldiers up for interrogation."

---

posted                      

quote:

---

The Private Contractor - GOP Gravy Train
By Robert Schlesinger of Salon.com
Tuesday 11 May 2004

From Blackwater to CACI, mercenary companies in Iraq have a warm and cozy relationship with the Republican politicians who are employing them.
����Private armies have become ubiquitous in Iraq, supplying everything from support services to mercenary soldiers to interrogators. While Halliburton's contracts for logistical support have been widely reported, until the firefight in Fallujah in late March left four Blackwater Security employees dead, the public knew little about the extent to which the estimated 20,000 private military forces in Iraq are participating in direct military action.
����The shocking photographs of the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison raise anew questions about the U.S. military's use of private contractors. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report about practices at the prison contained information that two CACI employees "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib." Contractors from Titan International were also present during the abuses.
����"This industry really didn't exist 10 years ago," says Peter Singer, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry." A decade ago, mercenary soldiering was less the stuff of corporate America than the inspiration for Soldier of Fortune fantasies. Now, as Singer reported in Salon, the industry generates over $100 billion annually worldwide.
����As little known as these companies are to the general public, they are only too familiar in Washington, where they have deployed a different kind of mercenary force -- phalanxes of lobbyists -- along with the ammunition of modern political warfare, campaign contributions. And they have found eager friends, particularly among Republican leaders in and out of Congress.
����"The move into the political game tends to happen for three reasons," Singer says. "One, this business is growing. Second, companies that are in other industries move into the sector, bringing influence and lobbyists to bear." Examples include Halliburton and, in the case of private security firms and other companies that provide combat- or intelligence-oriented services, firms like CACI and Titan. Finally, Singer says, "A lot of firms have picked up lobbyists as they've gained a public profile."
����Blackwater, the firm that guards Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer, and whose men were killed at Fallujah, has hired the well-connected Alexander Strategy Group to guide it through the current publicity storm and help influence Congress on whatever rules are generated to govern private militias in war zones, according to the Hill newspaper.
����Alexander may turn out to be a clever choice: Ed Buckham, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is Alexander's chairman. Tony Rudy, another former top DeLay operative, and Karl Gallant, who once ran DeLay's leadership PAC, are also onboard.
����Blackwater also works other angles. One of the firm's founders is Michigan native Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL. His father, Edgar Prince, helped religious right leader Gary Bauer found the Family Research Council in 1988. Erik Prince's sister, Betsy DeVos, is the chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party. But Blackwater is a relative newcomer to the Washington influence game, especially compared with CACI and Titan, which have been trailblazers.
����For more than four years, CACI has employed the Livingston Group and its "strategic partner," Louisiana law firm Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere and Denegre, to represent the company's interests in Washington. Since 2000, CACI has poured $160,000 into Livingston and $150,000 into Jones, Walker.
����The Livingston who gave the firm its name is former House Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston, the Louisiana Republican designated as Newt Gingrich's successor to the speaker's gavel in 1998. Amid the House debate over the impeachment of President Clinton, Livingston dramatically announced his retirement because of his own sexual peccadilloes. "Livingston is the only former chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee now in private practice," reads a bio on his firm's Web site.
����Livingston's former top staffers, who have joined him in the private sector, also work on the CACI account, according to lobbying filings with the House and Senate. In addition, the two firms employ former legislative liaisons (bureaucratese for lobbyists) from the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard -- all registered to lobby for CACI.
����More than 92 percent of CACI's $843 million in revenues last year came from the federal government -- 63 percent from the Pentagon alone. The company's lobbyists are essential in the continuing effort to grease that wheel of fortune.
����Titan's lineup of lobbyists is even broader. Its in-house team includes chairman Gene Ray, a former top Air Force official; John Dressendorfer, a former White House lobbyist under President Reagan who also worked in President Nixon's Pentagon; Lawrence Delaney, who closed out his service to the Clinton administration as acting undersecretary of the Air Force; and, for good measure, Susan Golding, a former Republican mayor of San Diego.
����Titan's hired guns include the law firm of Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton and Shockey, which employs Letitia White, a longtime staffer to Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., to work on Titan's issues. Lewis, by the way, is the chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The firm American Defense International, also employed by Titan, includes Van Hipp, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army under then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney who was later appointed the No. 2 lawyer in the Navy, and Michael Herson, a former special assistant to then Secretary Cheney.
����What's more, Titan has engaged the services of NorthPoint Strategies, composed mainly of former top staffers to Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Cunningham, a former member of the Armed Services Committee, as it happens sits on the Appropriations defense subcommittee as well as the Intelligence Committee.
����All told, Titan has spent $1.29 million since 2000 on Washington lobbying. In 2003 alone, it paid NorthPoint $240,000. And its lobbying has paid off. Last year, the company had revenues of $1.8 billion, according to its annual report: "Our revenues from U.S. government business represented approximately 96% of our total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2003."
����This revolving door between congressional staffers or retired military personnel and lobbying firms is not circumscribed by the requirements of the House and Senate lobby registration. Most of the private contractors operating in Iraq have high-ranking retired brass in their executive suites. CACI's board of directors, for example, features retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff. Carl Vuono and Ronald Griffith, the president and executive vice president, respectively, of Alexandria, Va., firm MPRI, which is helping to train and equip the new Iraqi Army, are both retired generals.
����But preexisting relationships are only one weapon in the Washington operator's arsenal. Money remains one of the most important tools.
����Not surprisingly, these companies have been very generous to the Republican Party. Titan's PAC, for example, has contributed a dozen times more money to Republicans than to Democrats during this election cycle: It kicked in $182,000 to Republican committees and candidates, including $10,000 apiece to the leadership PACs of Lewis, Cunningham, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. (whose leadership group is called Peace Through Strength PAC). Titan's PAC also gave the maximum $10,000 to the campaign committees of Cunningham, Lewis and Hunter. Democrats have received a mere $15,000 from Titan.
����In addition, top executives with Titan have contributed in excess of $58,000 to political candidates and committees since 2000, more than $49,000 of that amount going to Republicans. Ray alone gave $28,000, the bulk of it to Republicans. Reps. Cunningham and Hunter each got from Titan executives at least $10,000 (not including the $3,000 given to Hunter's Peace Through Strength PAC). The Democrat who has received the most money from Titan executives is Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.
����CACI executives gave a total of $29,250 over the same time period, $25,750 of it to Republican interests. J.P. "Jack" London, CACI's CEO, alone gave $10,000, all to Republicans.
����Some of the private security firms in Iraq are clearly fresh to the political game: Three executives from Triple Canopy -- whose forces fought a pitched battle against Iraqi insurgents in April -- each wrote $2,000 in checks to the Bush-Cheney campaign in March.
����While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has now testified on Iraqi prisoner abuse -- some of it carried out by workers employed by private firms -- no hearings have yet been scheduled on the widespread use of mercenaries to fill jobs once performed by U.S. soldiers. And deployment of such workers is unlikely to decrease as election year contributions grow: The number of hired mercenaries is expected to double after the June 30 hand-over of "limited sovereignty" to an Iraqi government.

---

UGH....the more I see of these "corporate armies" the more I want to see these things disbanded...when the private armies start influencing policy, this just screams of a disaster waiting to happen....and the number of these mercs are supposed to double after the largely illusory June 30 "handover"? The Bush administration has some funny ideas about soverignty...

--------------------
The best way to predict the future is to create it.