In which lambert apologizes, again, for being prematurely correct (on torture)
Here's the post in its entirety. 2004-05-09, from Corrente's old site on blogger:
Sunday, May 09, 2004 Abu Ghraib tortures: Who let the dogs out?
Maybe there is a smoking gun.
Well. It will be rather difficult for the MWs, the Sabbath Day Gas Bags, and the WhiteWash House, Inerrant Boy and poor old Donald "Wolf Meat" Rumsfeld to portray the torture at Abu Ghraib as individual failures after these photos.
MWDs (Military Working Dogs) are worked as part of a team.
Here are some regulations, from Department of the Army Pamphlet 19012 (PDF). To quote:
17. Quality assurance
Every level of command within the Army has specific responsibilities for making sure that the MWD program is properly established and efficiently managed. This includes ensuring that operational units are provided with trained dogs and handlers to form teams, and the necessary equipment and facilities to maintain effective local MWD programs. The Air Force is the executive manager of the MWD program for the Department of Defense (DOD), and is responsible for the procurement, initial training, and initial distribution of MWDs used by the military services and several Federal agencies. Specific responsibilities are per AR 19012.
Right up the chain of command, eh? "Every level." Somebody's got to authorize the dogs, the kennels, the handlers, and the purpose. To quote the regulations again:
Requests for authorization of MWDs and their shipping crates are submitted through command channels according to AR 31034 and AR 31049 on DA Form 461 0R (Equipment Changes in MTOE/TDA). Part I is selfexplanatory. The request for authorization must identify the nomenclature and line item number (LIN) for the type dogs being requested, as well as specify the number of dogs of each type being requested in Part II. Part III, Personnel, also should be completed so the approving authority has verification that the correct handlers (by number, ASI, and rank/grade) are being requested. Part IV, Justification, contains a complete justification for the dogs being requested as required by AR 19012. If additional space is needed, continue on plain white, lettersize paper. DA Form 4610R is forwarded through command channels as a letter request for authorization of equipment. Approval authority for all requests for authorization of MWDs is at Headquarters, Department of the Army (DALOEARAA).
So. "Forward through command channels." Who let the dogs out?
NOTE These regulations are from the Army site. If we have an alert reader who is military, perhaps they can give us more detail on current MWD regulations.
link to this post - by Lambert : 3:45 PM | Comments (12)
A few weeks short of five years ago. And today we read from Digby (quoting Raw Story (quoting Senator Carl Levin's memo accompanying the Senate Armed Services report)):
The Committee’s report provides extensive details about how the aggressive techniques made their way from Afghanistan to Iraq. In February 2003, an SMU Task Force designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy from Afghanistan that included aggressive techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim. (p. 158) Months later, the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy and submitted it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command to Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7), led at the time by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs to exploit detainees’ fears in their interrogations of detainees. ...
Over the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained the statements and interviews of scores of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. These statements reveal that the interrogation techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO – including stress positions, forced nudity, and military working dogs – were used by military intelligence personnel responsible for interrogations. ...
· An Army dog handler at Abu Ghraib old military investigators in February 2004 that “someone from [military intelligence] gave me a list of cells, for me to go see, and pretty much have my dog bark at them… Having the dogs bark at detainees was psychologically breaking them down for interrogation purposes.” (p. 209). ...
The investigation also revealed that interrogation policies authorizing aggressive techniques were approved months after the CJTF-7 policy was revised to exclude the techniques, and even after the investigation into detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib had already begun. For example, an interrogation policy approved in February 2004 in Iraq included techniques such as use of military working dogs and stress positions. (p. 220). ...
A policy approved for CJTF-7 units in Iraq in March 2004 also included aggressive techniques. While much of the March 2004 policy remains classified, newly declassified excerpts indicate that it warned that interrogators “should consider the fact that some interrogation techniques are viewed as inhumane or otherwise inconsistent with international law before applying each technique. These techniques are labeled with a [CAUTION].” Among the techniques labeled as such were a technique involving power tools, stress positions, and the presence of military working dogs. (pp. 220-221). ...
Maybe there is a smoking gun. ... Somebody's got to authorize the dogs, the kennels, the handlers, and the purpose. ... Who let the dogs out?
2009-05-20, Senator Carl Levin via Digby:
The interrogation techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO – including ... military working dogs – were used by military intelligence personnel responsible for interrogations. ... On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs ...
This was a very easy post to write: Evidence, and a soupçon of reasoning. So why was an unpaid, foul-mouthed blogger the one to write it, instead of a reporter in our famously free press? Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?
NOTE Maybe now somebody could look into what happened to the prisoners in the black sites?