Share

Documents Describe Torture Photos

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Abu Ghraib. (Photo: DoD File)

    US Army soldiers in Afghanistan took dozens of pictures of their colleagues pointing assault rifles and pistols at the heads and backs of hooded and bound detainees and another photograph showed two male soldiers and one female soldier pointing a broom to one detainee "as if I was sticking the end of a broom stick into [his] rectum," according to the female soldier's account as told to an Army criminal investigator.

    Documents found on the ACLU web site describe many of the photographs that were set for release at the end of the month. The ACLU has been trying to gain access to the photographs for nearly six years. The ACLU obtained the files describing the pictures in 2005 as part of the organization's wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Bush administration, seeking documents related to the treatment of "war on terror" prisoners in US custody.

    Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney, confirmed that the photographs described in documents posted on the group's web site were those that President Obama has decided to withhold, fearing the disclosure would stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger US troops.

    Last September, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the prisoner abuse photographs released. The Bush administration challenged the ruling, and in March the court denied that petition. The appeals court also shot down the Bush administration's attempt to radically expand FOIA exemptions for withholding the photos, stating that the Bush administration had attempted to use the FOIA exemptions as "an all-purpose damper on global controversy."

    In April, the Obama administration had agreed to release the photos because the Justice Department said it did not believe it could convince the Supreme Court to review the case.

    The appeals court panel ordered the 21 photographs taken in Afghanistan and in Iraq that depict detainees being abused to be released. About 23 other pictures taken at undisclosed locations in Iraq and Afghanistan were also subject to release.

    About 31 digital photographs contained on a compact disc discovered in June 2004, during an office clean-up at Bagram Airfield, also depicted the corpse of a "local national," who died from "apparent gunshot wounds," and uniformed US soldiers from the Second Platoon of the 22nd Infantry Battalion stationed at Fire Base Tycze and Dae Rah Wod (DRW) kicking and punching prisoners whose heads were covered with "sand bags" and blindfolds and hands were "zipped-tied," according to a US Army criminal investigation.

    The soldiers said they intended to keep the prisoner abuse photographs as "mementos" to recall their deployment in Afghanistan, according to an Army criminal investigation.

    The Pentagon banned the use of hoods following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, where shocking photos were leaked of sexual and physical abuse in 2004. According to a report on prisoner abuse prepared for the Department of Defense by James Schlesinger, orders signed by Bush and Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003 authorizing brutal interrogations "became policy" at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

    The documents describing the photographs were part of separate reports prepared in May, July and August 2004 by the Army's Criminal Investigative Division into the abuse of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Another photograph that was set for release at the end of month that is now being withheld was taken in December 2003 and was found on a government computer. The image shows three soldiers at the St. Mere Forward Operating Base posing with three Iraqi detainees "zip-tied to bars in a stress position, fully clothed, with hoods over their heads."

    One female soldier in the photo is pointing a broom "as if I was sticking the end of a broom stick into the rectum of a restrained detainee," she testified to Army investigators in April 2004.

    On March 27, 2004, this soldier sent an email to an undisclosed number of her colleagues. She discovered that the photograph she appeared in had been widely disseminated and that she was under investigation.

You guys have a picture of me holding a broom near a detainee. I don't have a copy of this picture anywhere ... but some Marine got a hold of it and now I'm being investigated for detainee abuse. I guess one of you share (sic) the photos with the Marines ... but either way, they have a copy of that picture.

Anyway, this email serves two purposes. First, I know that at least one more of you guys is in the picture, but I cannot remember who. If I'm being investigated ... I'm sure that the other individuals in this picture will be investigated as well, so heads up! Secondly, can I please have a copy of this picture ASAP!!! I can't stress how badly I need this picture so I can show people that it was just a posed shot, and that I wasn't physically beating anyone with a broom.

    One of the recipients of the soldier's email replied the same day with a copy of the photograph and a note that said, "I can't see how they think this is anything but fun."

    The female soldier interviewed by Army criminal investigators testified that she did not remember why the Iraqi prisoners in the photograph were "flexicuffed to the bars ... and have sandbags covering their heads," but "detainees were put in that stress position either because the interrogators felt that the detainee could provide further intelligence, or because the detainee was a disciplinary problem." She said the detainees weren't placed in that position for the photograph but were "already there when we decided to take the picture."

    That investigation was initiated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which was headed by Donald Rumsfeld and found evidence that several soldiers "committed the offenses of conspiracy, failure to obey a general order, and cruelty and maltreatment when they posed for an inappropriate photograph with detainees."

    The female solider who appeared in the photo testified, "The other interrogators and I did not have a lot of work to do for a couple of days. Myself and several other MPs ... were fooling around in the prison, and SGT [redacted] took several photographs."

    The soldier said "everyone" was taking pictures and he was unaware of a "no picture" taking policy. "It was always an [military interrogator] call to zip-tie them and put them in certain positions."

    The Army investigative report into the photographs found on the compact disc is more than 500 pages and determined that eight soldiers, whose identities were redacted, "committed the offense of dereliction of duty, when as guards detailed to secure and protect detainees, they willfully failed to perform their duties with no reasonable or just excuse, by jokingly pointing weapons at the bound detainees, and exposed photographs of this unwarranted activity."

    Soldiers admitted that dozens of other photographs of prisoner abuse were destroyed after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke in May 2004. A separate Army criminal investigative report prepared that month also found that a soldier "possessed a photograph of himself pointing what appears to be a pistol at an unidentified [prisoner], whose hands were tied and his head covered laying down."

    The soldiers interviewed said Special Forces out of Fort Bragg were in charge of operating the military facilities where the photographs were taken and had never provided soldiers with any written guidelines on how to handle detainees.

    In addition, soldiers interviewed said Special Forces Psyops and military interrogation teams authorized them to "play loud music and keep detainees awake if the interrogators wanted them to."

    One soldier said they "kept the detainees awake by holding them up or by playing the loud music," the report noted. The soldier said Special Forces instructed soldiers that prisoners who were "violent or had information" were "flex-cuffed on their hands, heads covered and not allowed to sleep."

    Sleep deprivation, which is what the soldier appeared to be describing, would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions ban on cruel and inhumane treatment and underscores how the Bush administration's interrogation policies trickled down to low-level soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    One soldier admitted during a July 2004 interview with an Army investigator that he took "bad photographs" before "the incident in Iraq," which is likely a reference to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The soldier characterized the "bad photographs" as those in which the "public would be outraged" if they were released. He went on to state "that he was standing behind a prisoner with a weapon holding it at their head" in one of the two photographs he appeared in.

    The corpse of the dead Afghanistan national was photographed sometime in January 2004 after he was shot to death by US soldiers, who believed he was responsible for a rocket-propelled grenade attack on Fire Base Tycze that seriously wounded three US soldiers. However, an investigation into the incident was never conducted.

    Most of the soldiers interviewed in all of the incidents stated that they were not aware of any set policy on the treatment of detainees, and did not realize at the time that their actions were wrong nor did they believe they were inappropriate. A sergeant stated that he had also seen pictures on Army computers of detainees being kicked, hit or inhumanely treated while in US custody.

    Another soldier said he had "seen a few pictures of this nature before but thought nothing of it since these people are the ones that are trying to kill us."

    On Wednesday, Obama told reporters that the photographs "are not particularly sensational."

    Obama said that his decision to withhold the photographs stemmed from his personal review of the photos and his concern that their release would endanger American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. But pressure from Bush administration holdovers, the media and two senators also played a role.

    Obama's reversal marks a renewal of US hypocrisy regarding the abuse of detainees and the hiding of evidence about such crimes.

    For instance, last September in upholding a lower court ruling ordering the release of the photos, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that past US administrations had championed the release of photos that showed prisoners of war being abused and tortured.

    Notably, after World War II, the US government publicized photos of prisoners in Japanese and German prisons and concentration camps, which the court noted, "showed emaciated prisoners, subjugated detainees, and even corpses. But the United States championed the use of the photos as a means of holding the perpetrators accountable."

    The Bush administration's legal arguments were rife with other examples of hypocrisy, including an argument that release of the photos - even with the personal characteristics of detainees obscured - would violate their privacy rights under the Geneva Conventions.

    The irony was that the Bush administration - with the help of legal opinions drafted by Justice Department lawyers - had maintained that detainees from the war in Afghanistan and the larger "war on terror" were not entitled to prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions.

    Indeed, an action memo signed by President Bush on February 7, 2002, opened the door to abusive treatment by declaring that the Third Geneva Convention, which sets standards for treatment of prisoners from armed conflicts, did not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda and that Taliban detainees were not entitled to the convention's legal protections.

    The ACLU argued that the Bush administration's legal strategy was "surprising because there would be no photos of abuse to request had the government cared this much about the Geneva Conventions before the abuses occurred and the photos were taken."

    In disputing the administration's selective application of these international standards, the ACLU noted "the Geneva Conventions were designed to prevent the abuse of prisoners, not to derail efforts to hold the government accountable for those abuses."

    Federal courts agreed with the ACLU's arguments. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the Bush administration's position legally flawed and added that releasing "the photographs is likely to further the purposes of the Geneva Conventions by deterring future abuse of prisoners."

    Obama's decision to fight to conceal the photos marks an about-face on the open-government policies that he proclaimed during his first days in office.

    On January 21, he signed an executive order instructing all federal agencies and departments to "adopt a presumption in favor" of FOIA requests and promised to make the federal government more transparent.

    "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," Obama's order said. "In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public."

    The Obama administration has until June 9 either to reargue the case before the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York or to petition the US Supreme Court to review the matter.

  

»


Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

It is SO hard to know where

It is SO hard to know where to come down on this issue. On the one hand I trust the president on the other hand I don't trust the president because I do not trust power. They are almost always more concerned with running for the next election than they are with morality. Moreover what do we want to occur? Will these photos do ANYTHING to prevent this from ever happening again or will it simply inflame the Arab world and make things worse FOR US! Who really ARE the enemy and what can we do that MOST secures us. I would like to live, thank you very much but I do not know the best way to deal with our threats. A change course a total revamping of US foreign policy which would be more concerned with the changing of the human condition in the Middle East or a heavy fisted take no prisoners approach no matter what damn the torpedoes full steam ahead. Would that keep us safe? We KNOW our enemies are ruthless so what is the answer. Darned if I know. I do not know what the truth is.

Keating 5 to save the face

Keating 5 to save the face of so called American Values "heroes" John Glenn and John McCain were let off the hook for their criminal actions, so too was the Reagan/Bush Administration with the exception of a couple patsies handed token sentences as is the case with Libby, Cunningham & Abramoff our government has been corrupted wholly and completely by corporate pyramid scheme ideology which must be quashed from the top down

After reading this article-

After reading this article- I am glad they did not release the photos. I hope they save the photos for the trial against Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"Who really ARE the enemy

"Who really ARE the enemy and what can we do that MOST secures us..." What is clear from photos that have already been seen is that not a few of those enemies pay lip-service to the Christian god, dress in American fashion, fly American flags, inhabit American halls of power. Turning a blind eye to this, the American people become their own worst enemy, and set themselves against the world they are willing to rape for their own selfish gain.

Unless we demand that

Unless we demand that everything be disclosed we are as guilty as the people who lived within miles of the concentration camps and could smell the stench of bodies being burned and never said or did anything. If we do not stand up and demand an accounting, we are as guilty as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

I understand President

I understand President Obama's rationale for withholding the photos from the public, but I think he is dead wrong. The American people should see the full story of what went on, then make two decisions: Was it torture? And was it right? The answer will say a lot to the world about who we are as Americans.

We call our enemies

We call our enemies "ruthless" yet we torture them unmercifully. We call our enemies "liars" yet we lie with the greatest ease. We call our enemies "barbarians" yet we kill hundreds of innocent women and children. We are the enemy!

sounds like a war criminal

sounds like a war criminal infestation. Securing serious prosecutions where applicable under law must be pursued with vigor and alacrity. Justice delayed is justice denied for far too many. Time for real change for a change.

The other day on Thom

The other day on Thom Harman's radio show, he said the photos had been leaked to and Austrailian newspaper and had already been published. He stated that you better have a strong stomach to view them and that there was a LOT of blood. Has anyone else heard anything about these supposedly leaked photos???? I'm surprised they have not yet gone viral on the web.

Come on people, the CIA

Come on people, the CIA destroyed hundreds of tapes depicting the torture that went on! Do you think that we will ever be made aware of the extent of the brutality and criminality that actually occurred? Semour Hearsh, the famous New York Times journalist, in an article a few weeks ago described some of the torture that occurred and this included US soldiers sodomizing children in front of their mothers while the children screamed in terror! This gives you a little idea of the depth of evil that has engulfed our military and our politicians. Yes! We must demand that the truth be brought out in the open, but then prepare for the 'fallout' that will ensue! The world will know that we are the great terrorists of our time!

The soldiers didn't know

The soldiers didn't know their action were wrong, because they had no directives??!!! What is the Army teaching them? Army strong - meaning you build your muscles so that you can beat down anyone you don't like? Military justice? Codes of honor? The sooner we are put under the same sanctions we imposed on Japan after what we considered ITS war of aggression in WWII the sooner we will be forced to return to some kind of sanity. America must come home to itself - and the country will not do so until the Armed Services are forced to learn decency and the rule of law. We expected so much from Barack Obama. Let's hope he does not completely disappoint us.

Natalie, I do not mean to

Natalie, I do not mean to offend and I see your point, but for me it’s not too hard to know where to come down on this issue. Yes, the terrorists are ruthless. But that does not mean that we also have to be ruthless or sacrifice our own values and laws to achieve our goals. I know that is just my opinion, but I believe we are better than that. I believe we are smarter, more powerful, and more resourceful than our enemies, and we need the support for morality and humanity fully on our side. The most important issue here is precedent. Set the precedent in stone that we do not endorse torture ever. That is truly supporting our troops. Setting precedent is the only way to maintain Justice, therefore insuring Freedom and Democracy. I just read that there have been reports of torture being used by Police in Sri Lanka. If you condone torture under any circumstance, you are allowing someone (or some power) to determine the circumstances. It is then only a matter of when and how often torture will be justified as a tool. If we have any compassion for future generations, and our American Values, we must set a precedent now. Sooner or later the pictures and the whole truth needs to come out. We are America, we will dust ourselves off. And what is our goal? That’s easy. To reinstate and reaffirm the ‘rule of law’, both at home and abroad before it’s too late.

Yes, there are some pictures

Yes, there are some pictures from an Australian paper on George Washington's Blog. You have to search down the right side bar. How come these soldiers don't seem to have any standards to abide by? Don't they have any ethical training? Even with the interrogators getting orders from higher ups, I guess I would've still expected some form of professionalism from our military personnel. This is all just sick, and I can't believe there is a 'political' argument FOR torture!

It seems that we've finally

It seems that we've finally been given the justification for not allowing the American public to see the photos and videos. It's because the torture depicted was really a lot worse than we've been told. Children being raped in front of their parents is hard to justify as being necessary to "save democracy". Although the rest of the world already knows about it and is as mad as it possibly can be, the American public is too illiterate to learn anything without pictures. If the American public actually saw the pictures and videos for themselves, there might be a call for justice. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. It also seems that we've finally been given the justification for not closing Guantanamo: that most of the prisoners are probably completely innocent. Therefore, we cannot try them without any evidence, we can't just hand them over to other countries because they'd just release them, and we can't just release them into our own country because, after all, they must be guilty of something. If they weren't dangerous before, after being given the "Abu Graib treatment", what's left of their minds are probably so jumbled that they might be as dangerous as any other insane person forced into homelessness. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Just keep the oil flowing and keep your mouths shut. I always thought the neo-con-man’s motto should be "Do as we say and no one gets hurt!"

Our free press isn't really

Our free press isn't really free, is it? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld started embedded reporting, no pictures of returning caskets, and even trying to frighten the press by attacking their hotel. What a difference between the coverage of the Iraq war over and against the stellar coverage of WW2, Viet Nam, and Korea! The result is that the public really has no idea what really is happening in Iraq. For some reason the media goes meekly along with the program and does not print all the news. There is plenty of shame to go around. How naive I was to think that Obama would provide the "transparency" he promised! In fairness, Obama was handed the wreckage of manifold Bush/Cheney policies. In my view, the only way forward is to look backward and indict the war criminals who preceeded him. That Obama continues with any policies of the former administration is problematical, confusing and profoundly disappointing.

Dear Natalie: You do know

Dear Natalie: You do know what the Truth is; it's the facts (as in evidence) to which you cannot swear first hand. The Truth is in the Law and the Law states that a servicemember must disobey an unlawful, bad order. Committing sodomy on a child (see Steve Weissman of a couple of articles ago) can only be described as a bad order therefore, there is no Nuremburg defense for the servicemembers. Their penalty must include giving up their commanders who are themselves guilty of issuing the bad order. Take it all the way to the top. Start now.