|
sadefasefaefaes
|
1996-2008: FBI Uses InfraGard to Train Private Citizens to Cooperate with Government, Potentially Enforce Martial Law
InfraGard logo. [Source: Progressive.org]Twenty-three thousand executives and employees of various private firms work with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The group, called InfraGard, receives secret warnings of terrorist threats well in advance of public notification, and sometimes before elected officials. In return, InfraGard provides information to the government. InfraGard is a quiet quasi-governmental entity which wields an unknown, but extensive, amount of power and influence. Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance (INMA) and the CEO of an international consulting firm, calls InfraGard “a child of the FBI.” The organization started in Cleveland in 1996, when business members cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber-threats. The FBI then “cloned it,” according to Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the INMA. Schneck is one of the biggest proponents of InfraGard. As of February 2008, 86 chapters of InfraGard exist in each of the 50 states, operating under the supervision of local FBI agents. “We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck. According to the InfraGard website, “At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector. InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.” After the 9/11 attacks, InfraGard experiences explosive growth—from 1,700 members in November 2001 to 23,682 members in January 2008. 350 members of the Fortune 500 have members in InfraGard. Prospective members are sponsored by existing members, then vetted by the FBI. The organization accepts members from agriculture, banking and finance, and chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation industries.
Controlled Exposure - InfraGard’s inner workings are not available to the general public; its communications with the FBI and DHS are not accessible through the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption. And InfraGard carefully controls its exposure and contact with the media. According to the InfraGard website: “The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members. During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment.… The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee.… Tailor answers to the expected audience.… Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”
Advance Warning from the FBI - InfraGard members receive quick alerts on any potential terrorist threat or a possible disruption of US infrastructure. Its website boasts that its members can “[gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.” Hershman says members receive “almost daily updates” on threats “emanating from both domestic sources and overseas.” Schneck adds, “We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members. People are happy to be in the know.” Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, an InfraGard member passed along an FBI warning about a potential threat to California’s bridges to then-Governor Gray Davis, who had not yet heard anything from the FBI (see November 1, 2001). In return, InfraGard members cooperate with FBI and DHS operations. Schneck says: “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases. What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.” The relationships between the FBI and InfraGard members are key, she says. “If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn’t bother,” she says. “But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book.” InfraGard members have phone numbers for DHS, the FBI, and to report cyber-threats. InfraGard members who call in “will be listened to,” she says; “your call [will] go through when others will not.” The American Civil Liberties Union, who has warned about the potential dangers of Infragard to constitutional liberties (see August 2004), retorts, “The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment. There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends.… This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”
Preparing for Emergencies, Martial Law - InfraGard members are “very much looped into our readiness capability,” says a DHS spokeswoman. Not only does DHS “provide speakers” and do “joint presentations” with the FBI, but “[w]e also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.” InfraGard members are involved with the Bush administration’s “National Continuity Policy,” which mandates that DHS coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.” InfraGard members participate in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck says, sometimes by the hundreds. InfraGard members are drilling in preparation for martial law, members say. One business owner recently attended a meeting conducted by FBI and DHS officials. He recalls, “The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage. From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” In the event of martial law being declared, Infragard members will have the ability to travel in restricted areas and to evacuate citizens. But they will have other abilities and duties as well. InfraGard members, says the business owner, will be authorized to “shoot to kill” if necessary to maintain order and “protect our portion of the infrastructure. [I]f we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted.… We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions. It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.” Other InfraGard members deny that they have ever been told such; Schneck says InfraGard members will have no civil patrol or law enforcement responsibilities. The FBI calls such assertions “ridiculous.” But the business owner’s story has been corroborated by other InfraGard members. “There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” says Christine Moerke, an InfraGard member from Wisconsin. [InfraGard, 2008; Progressive, 2/7/2008]
- from historycommons.org
-link to infragard website
February 27, 2000: NSA Spied on Public Figures, Human Rights Organizations, Intelligence Officials Reveal
The NSA’s Echelon satellite surveillance system has eavesdropped on numerous public figures, human rights organizations, charities, and even the Vatican, former British intelligence officials admit (see February 27, 2000). The NSA, which shares information with Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, has eavesdropped on, among others, Princess Diana (see November 30, 1998), Mark Thatcher (the son of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher), the Pope, Mother Teresa, Amnesty International, Christian Aid, and others. It is unclear exactly when the NSA performed its surveillance operations, and what information it collected. The officials choose to speak out after the European Parliament announces it will open an inquiry into Echelon’s operations (see July 11, 2001). Former NSA official Wayne Madsen says, “Anybody who is politically active will eventually end up on the NSA’s radar screen.” The NSA routinely monitors charities and human rights organizations operating overseas because they often have access to information about regimes opposed to Western interests. Madsen believes the NSA spied on Diana because of her human rights work; he says that “undisclosed material held in US government files on Princess Diana was collected because of her work with the international campaign to ban landmines.” Mark Thatcher was monitored in the 1980s because of his work on the huge al-Yamamah arms contract being negotiated between Britain and Saudi Arabia. The NSA also monitored conversations by officials of the Panavia consortium, which builds the Tornado fighter plane. British Aerospace is a major partner in the consortium. “I just think of Echelon as a great vacuum cleaner in the sky which sucks everything up,” says former Canadian intelligence officer Mike Frost. “We just get to look at the goodies.” Former US computer software manager Margaret Newsham, who worked during the 1980s at the Menwith Hill listening station in Yorkshire, says, “I was aware that massive security violations were taking place. If these systems were for combating drugs or terrorism, that would be fine. But not for use in spying on individuals.” Newsham recalls being shocked when she overheard conversations by then-US senator Strom Thurmond (see April, 1988). “It was evident American constitutional laws had been broken,” she says. [London Times, 2/27/2000]
-from historycommons.org
-link to CNN News for Echelon satellite spy network
July 2001: NSA Director Falsely Claims NSA Is Not Monitoring US Citizens
In July 2001, NSA director Michael Hayden tells a reporter that the NSA does not monitor any US citizens without court warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). “We don’t do anything willy-nilly,” Hayden says. “We’re a foreign intelligence agency. We try to collect information that is of value to American decision-makers, to protect American values, America—and American lives. To suggest that we’re out there, on our own, renegade, pulling in random communications, is—is simply wrong. So everything we do is for a targeted foreign intelligence purpose. With regard to the—the question of industrial espionage, no. Period. Dot. We don’t do that.” When asked how Americans could verify that, Hayden says that they should simply trust the NSA to police and monitor itself, along with oversight from the White House and from Congress. However, it will later come to light that the NSA began illegally monitoring US citizens from the start of the Bush administration (see Spring 2001). A former NSA official will later dispute Hayden’s account. “What do you expect him to say?” the official says. “He’s got to deny it. I agree. We weren’t targeting specific people, which is what the President’s executive order does. However, we did keep tabs on some Americans we caught if there was an interest [by the White House.] That’s not legal. And I am very upset that I played a part in it.” [Truthout (.org), 1/17/2006] Hayden also denies persistent allegations from European government officials that the agency has engaged in economic espionage to help American companies against European competitors (see April 4, 2001). In March 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Barry Steinhardt says that “since there is no real check on [the NSA], there is no way to know” if they are following the law. Steinhardt says that Congress is the only real check on possible NSA abuses, but it has consistently failed to exercise any sort of aggressive oversight on the agency. [CNN, 3/31/2001]
- from historycommons.org
After 10:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Vice President Cheney Assembles Legal Team for Expanding Presidential Power
David Addington. [Source: David Bohrer / White House]According to an in-depth examination by the Washington Post, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney begins working to secure additional powers for the White House. Cheney had plans in place to begin acquiring these powers for the executive branch before the attacks, but had not begun to execute them.
Gathering the Team - David Addington, Cheney’s general counsel and legal adviser, had been walking home after having to leave the now-evacuated Eisenhower Executive Office Building. He receives a message from the White House telling him to turn around, because the vice president needs him. After Addington joins Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the East Wing of the White House, the pair reportedly begin “contemplating the founding question of the legal revolution to come: What extraordinary powers will the president need for his response?” Later in the day, Addington connects by secure video with Timothy Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel, who is in the White House Situation Room. John Yoo, the deputy chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, is also patched in from the Justice Department’s command center. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales joins them later. This forms the core legal team that Cheney will oversee after the terrorist attacks. Associate White House counsel Bradford Berenson will later recall: “Addington, Flanigan and Gonzales were really a triumvirate. [Yoo] was a supporting player.” Addington dominates the group. Gonzales is there primarily because of his relationship with President Bush. He is not, Yoo will later recall, “a law-of-war expert and [doesn’t] have very developed views.” Along with these allies, Cheney will provide what the Washington Post calls “the rationale and political muscle to drive far-reaching legal changes through the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon,” which will free the president to fight the war on terror, “as he saw fit.”
Drafting the AUMF - The team begins drafting the document that will become the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF—see October 10, 2002) passed by Congress for the assault on Afghanistan. In the words of the group, the president is authorized “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
Extraordinarily Broad Language - The language is extraordinarily broad; Yoo will later explain that they chose such sweeping language because “this war was so different, you can’t predict what might come up.” The AUMF draft is the first of numerous attempts to secure broad powers for the presidency, most justified by the 9/11 attacks. The Washington Post will later report, “In fact, the triumvirate knew very well what would come next: the interception—without a warrant—of communications to and from the United States” (see September 25, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001; CNN, 9/12/2001; Unger, 2007, pp. 220-221; Washington Post, 6/24/2007]
- from historycommons.org
September 21, 2001: Yoo: Fourth Amendment Irrelevant in Protecting US from Terror Attacks
In a memo, responding to a request from Deputy White House Counsel Timothy E. Flanigan, Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo provides legal advice on “the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States.” He addresses the question of how the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the use of “deadly force” by the military “in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens.” The Fourth Amendment requires the government to have some objective suspicion of criminal activity before it can infringe on an individual’s liberties, such as the right to privacy or the freedom of movement. Yoo writes that in light of highly destructive terrorist attacks, “the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.” If the president determines the threat of terrorism high enough to deploy the military inside US territory, then, Yoo writes, “we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection.” [New York Times, 10/24/2004] A month later, the Justice Department will issue a similar memo (see October 23, 2001). - from historycommons.org
January 29, 2001 - December 12, 2002: Bush Issues Executive Orders Allowing Faith-Based Aid Providers to Proselytize Aid Recipients
Habitat for Humanity logo. [Source: Habitat for Humanity]President Bush issues two executive orders establishing a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and ordering five cabinet-level departments to establish similar centers inside their own bureaucracies. Bush explains the need for such offices: to remove the internal rules and regulations that prevented churches and synagogues from obtaining government grants for welfare work such as building homeless shelters, addiction treatment centers, and soup kitchens. Many faith-based groups such as Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army receive millions of government dollars already, but to do so they must obey strict rules for keeping church and state separate: no proselytizing in the same facilities used for taxpayer-funded work, no discrimination against people of different faiths. Bush calls those rules discriminatory against religious groups. To allow the new faith-based offices to reshape the bureaucracy’s behavior, the White House needs to change the federal rules about who can receive taxpayer funds. It sends Congress a bill allowing religious groups to receive taxpayer funds even if they discriminate against people of other faiths, and even if they want to deliver their services in a religious context. Critics call the bill an attempt to establish government-sanctioned religious practices, and say it violates the constitutional wall between church and state. Congress refuses to even bring the bill to a vote. Instead, Bush issues an executive order instructing the bureaucracy to make the changes anyway. With Republicans in charge of both the House and Senate, Congress does not object, and the order stands. Now, faith-based groups can require aid recipients to listen to sermons, view symbols, and even participate in prayer and other religious observances. In 2004, Bush will boast of his actions: “I got a little frustrated in Washington because I couldn’t get the bill passed out of Congress. Congress wouldn’t act, so I signed an executive order—that means I did it on my own.” [Savage, 2007, pp. 289-291]
- from historycommons.org
-link to historycommons.org
A Time line of Torture & Abuse Allegations and Responses
By HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Allegations of torture and mistreatment of detainees by U.S. forces in Iraq do not involve isolated cases, but are part of a broader pattern of what the Army's own investigation into the matter called "systemic abuse." Concerns about mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other undisclosed detention facilities set up after September 11, 2001, have been raised many times by the media, NGO's, and the Congress.
December 25, 2002
- The Washington Post reports:
- Persons being held in the CIA interrogation center at Bagram air base who refuse to cooperate, "are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, according to intelligence specialists familiar with CIA interrogation methods. At times they are held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights- subject to what are known as 'stress and duress' techniques."
-"'If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job,' said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. 'I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this.'"
-"According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands, the understanding is, 'We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.'"
-"Bush Administration officials said the CIA, in practice, is using a narrow definition of what counts as 'knowing' that a suspect has been tortured. 'If we're not there in the room, who is to say?' said one official conversant with recent reports of renditions."
(Washington Post, Dec. 25, 2002.)
December 27, 2002
- Human Rights Watch writes to President Bush about allegations of torture reported in Washington Post, asking that the allegations be investigated immediately.
January 14, 2003
- Executive Directors of leading human rights groups write to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz urging that the administration publicly state that torture in any form or matter will not be tolerated, that the U.S. would not seek intelligence obtained through torture in a third country, to be accompanied by clear guidelines to U.S. forces.
January 31, 2003
- Executive Directors of human rights groups write to President George Bush demanding, "unequivocal statements by you and your Cabinet officers that torture in any form or matter will not be tolerated[and] that any U.S. official found to have used or condoned torture will be held accountable. These statements need to be accompanied by clear written guidance applicable to everyone engaged in the interrogation and rendition of prisoners."
February 5, 2003
- Representatives of major human rights groups meet with DOD General Counsel Haynes to urge the administration to develop clear standards to prevent the mistreatment of detainees.
February 6, 2003
- Newsday reports that Vincent Cannistraro, a former intelligence official, told reporters that, "Better intelligence has come from a senior al Qaeda detainee who had been held in the U.S. base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and was 'rendered to Egypt after refusing to cooperate. 'They promptly tore his fingernails out and he started to tell things.'" (Newsday, February 6, 2003)
March 4, 2003
- Wall Street Journal reports that a U.S. law enforcement officials says, "because the [Convention Against Torture] has no enforcement mechanism, as a practical matter, 'you're only limited by your imagination'" and in regards to rendering detainees to third-countries, a U.S. intelligence official stated that a detainee, "'isn't going to be near a place where he has Miranda rights or the equivalent of them. God only knows what they're going to do to him. You go to some other country that'll let us pistol whip this guy.'" (Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2003)
March 9, 2003
- New York Times reports that, "Intelligence officials also acknowledged that some suspects had been turned over to security services in countries known to employ torture. There have been isolated, if persistent, reports of beatings in some American-operated centers," and that in the case of Omar Al-Faruq's interrogation, "[t]he Western intelligence official described Mr. Faruq's interrogation as 'not quite torture, but about as close as you can get'over a three-month period, the suspect was fed very little, while being subjected to sleep and light deprivation, prolonged isolation and room temperatures that varied from 100 degrees to 10 degrees." (New York Times, March 4, 2003)
April 2, 2003
- William Haynes, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, responds to concerns raised by Human Rights Watch saying, "The United States questions enemy combatants to elicit information they may possess that could help forestall further terrorist attacks[but] United States policy condemns and prohibits torture." But while Haynes rules out torture, his letter sidesteps questions about whether U.S. interrogators engaged in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which is also prohibited by law.
June 2, 2003
- U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy writes to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that, "unnamed Administration officials have suggested in several press accounts that detainees held by the United States have been subjected to "stress and duress" interrogation techniques, including beating lengthy sleep and food deprivation." He asks the administration if such techniques are being employed and urges a clear statement that cruel, inhuman degrading treatment of detainees will not be tolerated.
June 24, 2003
- Executive Directors of Human Rights groups write to Condoleezza Rice asking that human rights monitors have access to prisoners and detention facilities under operation by U.S. forces to verify conditions of detention.
June 25, 2003
- William Haynes responds to Senator Leahy stating, "it is the policy of the United States to comply with all its legal obligations in its treatment of detainees." For the first time, Haynes states that it is U.S. policy "to treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur" in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. He further clarified that the term "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" means any treatment that would be prohibited in the United States by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution a standard that would clearly forbid most of the "stress and duress" techniques reported in the media, as well as degrading treatment later revealed in Iraq. At the same time, Haynes added that "it would not be appropriate to keep records of the interrogation techniques used by U.S. personnel, thus we cannot comment on specific cases or practices."
- U.S. Senator Arlen Specter writes to Dr. Rice asking for, "clarification about numerous stories concerning alleged mistreatment of enemy combatants in U.S. custody, " and to explain how the administration ensures that torture does not occur when it sends detainees to countries that are known to practice torture.
June 26, 2003
- In honor of United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, President Bush releases a statement saying that the U.S. is: "committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example" and called on all nations to join the U.S. in "prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent cruel and unusual punishment."
August 28, 2003
- The Associated Press reports, "The U.S. military opened a hearing Wednesday into allegations that four U.S. Army reservists abused Iraqi prisoners of war at a camp in [Umm Qasr]...They are alleged to have punched and kicked several Iraqis, breaking one man's nose, while escorting a busload of prisoners to a POW processing center. The soldiers say they acted in self-defense" (The Associated Press, August 28, 2003)
September 9, 2003
- Senator Leahy responds to William Haynes' letter of June 26, 2003 urging greater clarity in how the standards he outlined are implemented and communicated to U.S. personnel in the field, and asking for assurances that other agencies, including the CIA, respect the same standards as the U.S. military.
October 6, 2003
- AP Wire Service reports, "The U.S. military has shut down Camp Cropper, an increasingly notorious makeshift prison where hundreds of Iraqi detainees were crowded into tents through Baghdad's scorching summer." (AP Wire Services, October 6, 2003
October 19, 2003
- The Associated Press reports, "Eight marine reservists face charges ranging from negligent homicide to making false statements in connection with the mistreatment of prisoners of war in Iraq." (The Associated Press, October 19, 2003)
November 17, 2003
- Executive Directors of leading human rights groups write to William Haynes to express concern about the transfer by the U.S. of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria where Mr. Arar alleges he was brutally tortured for 10 months.
November 18, 2003
- Department of Defense (DOD) Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto writes to Senator Leahy to confirm that earlier DOD statements about the treatment of detainees bind the entire Executive Branch, but sidesteps specific questions about interrogation guidelines, and adds that articles alleging improper treatment of detainees "often contain allegations that are untrue."
December 13, 2003
- The Washington Post reports, "A battalion commander in Iraq who fired his pistol near the head of an Iraqi detainee after his soldiers had punched the prisoner was fined $5,000 yesterday as part of a nonjudicial disciplinary proceeding that effectively ends his Army career." (The Washington Post, December 13, 2003)
December 17, 2003
- The Associated Press Writer reports, "Marine reservists running a detention facility in Iraq ordered prisoners of war to remain standing for hours until interrogators could question them, according to testimony at a military court hearing" (Associated Press Writer, December 17, 2003)
January 6, 2004
- The Associated Press reports, "The U.S. Army discharged three reservists and ordered them to forfeit two months' salary for abusing prisoners at a detention center in Iraq." (The Associated Press, January 6, 2004)
January 12, 2004
- Human Rights Watch writes to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to express concern about the detention by U.S. forces in Iraq of innocent, close relatives of a wanted person in order to compel the person to surrender, which amounts to hostage-taking, classified as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.
January 13, 2004
- The Asian Wall Street Journal reports that a suspect detained by U.S. forces in Iraq claims, "he was ordered to stand upright until he collapsed after 13 hours," and interrogators, "burned his arm with a cigarette." (The Asian Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2004)
January 17, 2004
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that, "The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has ordered a criminal investigation into reports of abuse of prisoners at an unspecified coalition detention center." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 17, 2004)
January 18, 2004
- The Sunday Times reports claims by a detainee held by coalition forces in Iraq that during his three months in detention he was, "beaten frequently, given shocks with an electric cattle prod and had one of his toenails prised[sic] off."
February 10, 2004
- Human Rights Watch writes to Rumsfeld expressing concern about the treatment of detainees in Iraq and urges the administration to publicly clarify the status of the detainees and to make public the numbers of detainees being held.
February 23, 2004
- Reuters News reports that, "U.S. forces investigation allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at a prison west of Baghdad have suspended 17 soldiers including a battalion commander and a company commander," pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of abuse of detainees. (Reuters News, February 23, 2004)
March 8, 2004
- Human Rights Watch releases report revealing how U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan have arbitrarily detained civilians, used excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreated detainees. Released detainees testified that U.S. forces severely beat them, doused them with cold water and subjected them to freezing temperatures. Many said they were forced to stay awake, or to stand or kneel in painful positions for extended periods of time.
May 1, 2004
- The Washington Post reports, "Arab countries reacted with rage and revulsion yesterday after images of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners were broadcast around the world. Bush administration and U.S. military officials scrambled to contain the furor and to assuage concerns among allies. The photos showed U.S. troops celebrating as prisoners were sexually humiliated and otherwise abused." (The Washington Post, May 1, 2004)
May 2, 2004
- The Washington Post reports, "A top Pentagon intelligence officer is leading an investigation into interrogation practices at an Army-run prison where Iraqi detainees were allegedly beaten and sexually abused, officials announced Saturday. The move came amid allegations that military guards abused prisoners at the behest of military intelligence operatives." (Washington Post, May 2, 2004)
May 3, 2004
- Human Rights Watch writes to Condoleezza Rice that the ill treatment and torture of prisoners by the U.S. military in Iraq were not limited to isolated incidents, but reflected, in the words of the U.S. army's own inquiry, "systemic and illegal abuse of detainees." Human Rights Watch urges immediate action to reverse the harm these actions have caused in U.S. detention centers around the world.
Prepared by the staff at Human Rights Watch
-link to human rights watch
March 2, 2009: CIA Admits to Destroying 92 Videotapes of Interrogations
In a letter to Judge Alvin Hellerstein regarding the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)‘s lawsuit against the US Defense Department, the Justice Department informs Hellerstein that the CIA destroyed 92 videotapes of prisoner interrogations. The CIA’s previous admissions of the number of destroyed videotapes were far smaller (see November 2005). [Re: ACLU et al v. Department of Defense et al, 3/2/2009 ] The CIA confirms that the tapes showed what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on a number of detainees. The Justice Department adds that it will provide a list of summaries, transcripts, and memoranda related to the destroyed tapes, though the American Civil Liberties Union notes that a previous list was almost entirely redacted. [TPM Muckraker, 3/6/2009; American Civil Liberties Union, 3/6/2009] The disclosure comes as part of a criminal inquiry into the tapes’ destruction. As the investigation comes to a close, observers expect that no charges will be filed against any CIA employees. The agency’s Directorate of Operations chief, Jose Rodriguez, ordered the recordings destroyed in November 2005 (see November 2005); former CIA Director Michael Hayden argued that the tapes posed “a serious security risk” because they contained the identities of CIA participants in al-Qaeda interrogations. Rodriguez has not yet been questioned. It is believed that the tapes show, among other interrogation sessions, the waterboarding of two detainees, Abu Zubaida (see Mid-May 2002 and After) and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (see Shortly After Early October 2002). Civil libertarians and human rights advocates are outraged at the destruction of the tapes. “The sheer number of tapes at issue demonstrates that this destruction was not an accident,” says Amrit Singh, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “It’s about time the CIA was held accountable for its flagrant violation of the law,” she adds. CIA spokesman George Little says the destruction of the tapes was not an attempt to break the law or evade accountability. “If anyone thinks it’s agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don’t know the facts,” Little says. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirms that her panel intends to conduct a broader investigation of the CIA’s interrogation program. [Washington Post, 3/3/2009]
- from historycommons.org
Abu Zabaida- A Victim Not A Terrorist
Contrary to claims made by the administration and the CIA – which, as described in Time magazine shortly after his capture, indicated that he was "al-Qaeda's chief of operations and top recruiter," who would be able to "provide the names of terrorists around the world and which targets they planned to hit" – the story that emerged in Ron Suskind's 2006 book, The One Percent Doctrine, was that Zubaydah was nothing like the pivotal figure that the CIA had supposed him to be, and had actually turned out to be mentally ill.
Investigating his diary, analysts found entries in the voices of three people – a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego – which recorded in numbing detail, over the course of ten years, "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, the FBI's senior expert on al-Qaeda, explained to one of his superiors, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." According to Suskind, the officials also confirmed that Zubaydah appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations, and was, instead, a minor logistician.
And yet, as Suskind also reports, so misplaced was the CIA's belief in Zubaydah's importance that when they subjected him to waterboarding and other forms of torture, and he "confessed" to all manner of supposed plots – against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Statue of Liberty – "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each target ... The United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."
Abu Zabaida link #1 (antiwar.com)
Abu Zabadai link #2 (gaurdian.co.uk)
March 6, 2009: CIA Admits to Destroying 12 Videotapes of Prisoners Being Tortured
Court documents filed by the government show that the CIA destroyed 12 videotapes specifically depicting two detainees being tortured by interrogators. Though the CIA has previously admitted to destroying 92 videotapes (see March 2, 2009), this is the first time it has admitted that some of the tapes showed detainees being tortured. The agency does not use the word “torture,” but instead uses the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques.” According to the heavily redacted classified document: “There are 92 videotapes, 12 of which include EIT [enhanced interrogation techniques] applications. An OGC [Office of General Counsel] attorney reviewed the videotapes” and the CIA’s “OIG [Office of Inspector General} reviewed the videotapes in May 2003.” The document, along with others, are filed pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit begun by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU has asked that the CIA be found in contempt for destroying the videotapes, a motion that is still pending. The videotapes were destroyed to prevent disclosure of evidence showing that CIA interrogators actively tortured detainees, using waterboarding and other methods. The destruction is under investigation by acting US Attorney John Durham (see January 2, 2008). The two detainees depicted in the videotapes are Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, both of whom were waterboarded by the CIA (see March 2002, April - June 2002, and Shortly After Early October 2002). The document describing the destroyed videotapes says “interrogators administered the waterboard to Al-Nashiri.” The videotapes are believed to have been made at the CIA’s secret detention center in Thailand. The CIA has promised to release more information about the videotapes by March 20. However, according to acting US Attorney Lev Dassin, “to date, the CIA is not aware of any transcripts of the destroyed videotapes.” An unredacted version of the inventory of the destroyed videotapes will only be made available for the ACLU to view behind closed doors in court: “This inventory identifies the tapes and includes any descriptions that were written on the spine of the tapes.” Much of the information sought by the ACLU will remain classified, Dassin says. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh says the “government is needlessly withholding information about these tapes from the public, despite the fact that the CIA’s use of torture—including waterboarding—is no secret. This new information only underscores the need for full and immediate disclosure of the CIA’s illegal interrogation methods. The time has come for the CIA to be held accountable for flouting the rule of law.” Author and reporter Jane Mayer believes the tapes were destroyed at least in part because Democratic members of Congress briefed on the tapes began inquiring whether the interrogations of Zubaida and al-Nashiri were legal. [Public Record, 3/6/2009]
- from historycommons.org
April 16, 2009: Blogger Comes Up with Footnote Showing 2005 Memo Proves Interrogators Exceeded Guidelines on Waterboarding
Marcy Wheeler, an author and progressive blogger whose research is used by mainstream media to flesh out its coverage of the torture controversy (see April 18, 2009), discovers a footnote in a recently released Justice Department memo (see May 10, 2005 and April 16, 2009) that proves US interrogators sometimes exceeded the restrictions laid down on waterboarding by this and other Justice Department legal opinions. [Marcy Wheeler, 4/17/2009] The memo was dated May 10, 2005 and was issued by Steven Bradbury, then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. [Office of Legal Counsel, 5/10/2005 ] Wheeler writes: “In other words, the interrogators were dumping water on [Abu Zubaida]‘s and KSM’s [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s] faces and repeating that treatment over and over and over. Without any legal authorization to do so, no matter how bogus.… And note, this is precisely why the torture tapes were destroyed (see March 2, 2009 and March 6, 2009). CIA has admitted that the guys waterboarding Abu Zubaida broke the law. That tape was the irrefutable evidence of who did what.” [Marcy Wheeler, 4/17/2009] She adds: “There’s been a lot of discussion about whether those who did what the OLC memos authorized should be prosecuted. But in the case of those who waterboarded [KSM and Abu Zubaida], that’s irrelevant, because they did things the OLC memos didn’t authorize.” [Marcy Wheeler, 4/18/2009]
- from historycommons.org
April 18, 2009: Blogger, Not Reporters, Discover Information regarding Number of Times Suspected Terrorists Waterboarded
Marcy Wheeler. [Source: Project Censored]Progressive blogger Marcy Wheeler, who posts under the moniker “emptywheel” at FireDogLake.com, finds that, upon careful perusal of the March 30, 2005 CIA torture memo just released by the Obama administration (see May 30, 2005 and April 16, 2009), two suspected terrorists, Abu Zubaida and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, were waterboarded 266 times. Initial, more cursory news reports on the memo did not reveal this fact. The next day, the New York Times will cite Wheeler in its report on the discovery. [Marcy Wheeler, 4/18/2009; New York Times, 4/19/2009] Wheeler writes: “The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM. That doesn’t sound very effective to me.” [Marcy Wheeler, 4/18/2009] Days later, an unidentified “US official with knowledge of the interrogation program” will tell a Fox News reporter that the claim of 183 waterboardings for Mohammed is inaccurate and misleading. Mohammed was only waterboarded five times, the official will claim. The figure of 183 is the number of “pours” Mohammed was subjected to. “The water was poured 183 times—there were 183 pours,” the official says, adding, “[E]ach pour was a matter of seconds.” The report of five waterboardings for Mohammed comes from a 2007 Red Cross report, the official will say. [Fox News, 4/28/2009]
- from historycommons.org
April 20, 2009: Fox Host ‘Feel[s] Better’ Knowing that Terror Suspect Was Waterboarded 183 Times
Brian Kilmeade. [Source: Chattahbox (.com)]Brian Kilmeade, a co-host of Fox News’s morning broadcast Fox and Friends, says he “feel[s] better” knowing that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in a single month (see April 16, 2009 and April 18, 2009). “Guess what?” Kilmeade says. “Maybe if he were so scared of caterpillars [referring to militant training camp facilitator Abu Zubaida’s torture by insects—see August 1, 2002]… maybe he should have thought about that before he helped plot the taking down of 3,000-plus people on 9/11.” (Kilmeade is either unaware of, or ignoring, reports that show Zubaida may not have been a member of al-Qaeda and had no involvement in the 9/11 planning—see March 28, 2002, Shortly After March 28, 2002, and April 9, 2002 and After.) Kilmeade continues: “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I understand, was waterboarded 183 times. Did anyone care about that? Does anyone in America walk around going, ‘I’m really upset that the mastermind of 9/11 was waterboarded 183 times.’ That makes me feel better.… It’s unbelievable that people care more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, uh, his health, than they would about the future attacks that are being hatched.” [Media Matters, 4/20/2009]
- from historycommons.org
April 28, 2009: Media Recalls False Claim by Former CIA Officer in Light of New Waterboarding Revelations
Following the release of a set of Bush administration memos about torture (see April 16, 2009) and the discovery that Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 183 times in one month (see April 18, 2009), some commentators recall misleading comments made by former CIA officer John Kiriakou. In late 2007, shortly after the CIA admitted to destroying videos of Zubaida (see November 2005 and December 6, 2007) being ruthlessly tortured, Kiriakou toured media outlets, saying that Zubaida had only been waterboarded once (see December 10, 2007 and December 11, 2007). New York Times reporter Brian Stelter writes the most comprehensive treatment of Kiriakou’s “media blitz,” in an article entitled “How ‘07 ABC Interview Tilted a Torture Debate.” He points out that Kiriakou’s false claim of only one waterboarding was “repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs, and newspapers” and “quickly ricocheted around the media.” This despite the fact that Kiriakou was not even present at the black site where Zubaida was tortured, and only learned of his brutal treatment at the hands of the C.I.A. from reading accounts from the field. This injected the claim of one waterboarding into the public debate without the CIA having to make it itself. When asked about the false claim, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano replies: “This agency did not publicly disclose the frequency with which the waterboard was used, noting only that it was employed with three detainees. If reporters got that wrong, they weren’t misled from here.” In addition, Kiriakou claimed that at the time it did produce results and he had thought it was necessary then, statements that were repeated and amplified around the media. The net effect of his interjection in the debate was to make the torture seem much less harsh than it really was, diverting criticism away from the CIA. [New York Times, 4/28/2009] Numerous other commentators will make similar points. For example, in a piece entitled “John Kiriakou: CIA Media Plant” Foreign Policy magazine commentator Annie Lowery says: “It all seems a bit strange to me, and leads to one obvious conclusion: John Kiriakou—telegenic and well-spoken John Kiriakou, who never went to jail for blasting state secrets on television—was told the lies to tell and release onto an unsuspecting public. It’s a fact that the CIA will have difficulty dulling now.” [Foreign Policy, 4/28/2009]
|
110906
|
