Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Smoking Gun: Rumsfeld ordered torture [VIDEO]

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 5:29 PM on November 26, 2006.


Former head of Abu Ghraib, Karpinski, willing to testify
karpinski/rummy

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

There was no "smoking gun" found in Iraq in the form of WMD because there was no smoking gun of that flavor to be found.

A smoking gun of a different flavor has surfaced, however, placing Rumsfeld at the helm of torture at Abu Ghraib and beyond.

Sure, it's something that's been "understood" to have been sanctioned "from above" for the past 4 years, but now Janis Karpinski, former head of Abu Ghraib prison, has told a Spanish newspaper that she is willing to testify that Rumsfeld "personally authorized" torture at Abu Ghraib (Video right). Why she went to a Spanish newspaper to make this claim is anyone's best guess.

Reuters:

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished"," she told Saturday's El Pais.

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques."

The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.

When the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light in the form of a Seymour Hersh article and a shocking 60 Minutes II broadcast in April of 2004, Rumsfeld and the new stenographers, glommed onto the "bad apples" theory. It was just the work of some bad people acting independently, they claimed.

Of course, even were the bad apple theory valid...

Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez and then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld would be accomplices as they ignored the "Taguba Report" detailing sadistic and disturbing treatment at Abu Ghraib leading up to the more infamous incidents documented in the infamous photos.

From the Taguba Report, on treatment at Abu Ghraib between Oct & Dec, 2003 and submitted on February 26, 2004:

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

Back before the Iraq War had begun Rumsfeld was busy making a preemptive strike on the Geneva Conventions, characterizing complaints as "isolated pockets of international hyperventilation." Those isolated pockets have successfully, albeit slowly, exposed Rumsfeld's "techniques" to the world. These days, "isolated pockets" are seeking war crimes trials against the Secretary in Germany. Testifying against him, should the suit make it to trial, will be former U.S. Army Brigadier General (now Colonel) Janis Karpinski.

Meanwhile, the "bad apples" continue...

The second video, of Rummy flipping off a long-hair, is just for fun.

Digg!

Tagged as: torture, geneva conventions, rumsfeld, abu ghraib

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Fox, CNN, CBS Reaction Groups: Obama Won
Who won the debate? It's looking like a clean sweep for Obama.
Post by Sam Stein. October 7, 2008.
McCain Shows Disdain at Debate: Calls Obama 'That One'
Sounds like McCain is buying into the hate rhetoric spouted at his own rallies. Click through for more analysis.
Post by Seth Colter Walls. October 7, 2008.
BushCo on Whether the Country is in a Recession: 'Don't Know'
Bush and his administration have long resisted admitting that the economy is in trouble by quibbling about the technical definition of "recession."
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 7, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why did it take her so long?
Posted by: HeroesAll on Nov 26, 2006 10:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's nearly two years ago, that this story broke. Why has it taken her so long to step forward? And how many people have been tortured, how many have died, since then?

I mean, I appreciate her being willing to risk whatever remains of her career, but a little more promptness would have been nice.

Thanks for the clips, though, Evan. It's good to see that the story is making it to the mainstream for a change, although it remains to be seen how much airtime it'll get, and how much spin from media and government. If those buggers indulge in the same tedious obfuscatory tactics that they've used so successfully up until now, they'll get away with yet another atrocity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why did it take her so long? Posted by: fascistwatcher
» RE: Why did it take her so long? Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» RE: Why did it take her so long? Posted by: Orientalist
here it comes...
Posted by: chrstof on Nov 26, 2006 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the debate over what constitutes torture, that is.

i would not accept any of those treatments for myself or my children.

people like limbaugh, and even normal heartland americans find it easy to either margialize the severity of these inhuman procedures, or justify the use of them.

imagine that is your child being waterboarded. or being humiliated by any of those means listed. what about being threatened by trained attack dogs while shackled, and with no neighbors fence to quickly climb over?

while you may say that these people our government is treating this way are not innocent in the way your children are, we cannot forget that:
a) of all those detainees in captivity, most of them are guilty only of being arab or muslim at the wrong place and time. it kind of goes in the category of "leave no stone unturned." which leads to point
b) how does leading the rest of the world down this path of freedom happen, if we don't insist that we treat everyone as if they had the same costitutional protections our country, and all our philosophies are framed by?

it may not ease our pain, anger, and frustration towards those that truly have hurt us, but isn't the least the united states of america can do to offer progress to the world is play by our own standards, insist on the basic fairness implicit in our doctrine, do what is right instead of what is convenient, or expedient?

elitism is the condition in which one group allows itself privileges they would deny to others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: here it comes... Posted by: HeroesAll
Rumshit
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 27, 2006 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that we have the real Rumshit on Rummy we need to get the real Cheney/Bushit so that we can know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the dastardly Bushies so we can impeach their asses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: umshit Posted by: willymack
..as Revenge for 9/11 ??
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 27, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if all the Rightards that swallowed that little story attended Math.101 ?

9/11 = 2,500 dead
Iraq = 2,850 dead (and counting....)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And a little bit more Math 101 Posted by: eddie torres
International war tribunal
Posted by: mountainsrock on Nov 27, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a German court charges were filed against Rumsfeld. Though probably largely symbolic, it is nevertheless delicious....Tickets to The Hague, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why a Spanish paper
Posted by: maxloen on Nov 27, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 'why did it take it so long', saxto reminds us that printed English language media it's not considered to be the most reliable when it comes to affairs of the Middle East, Iraq, nor even Russia. Exceptions could be -mostly- taken for The Independent, or The Guardian, in the UK. But Murdoch's News Corp, the NYT Corp., Chicago's Tribune Corp., among others, are too compromised by the outcome of our adventures to be a fair and reliable source untainted by the Bushies neocons, the Military Industrial Complex, the Oil Industry, or the K Street lobbyists' political and money interests. In Venezuela the newspapers that because of their class interests veiled facts or created faked ones about the failed coup against President Chavez have lost so much credibility and readers that just about could be shutting down if it wasn't because some are part of large media conglomerates.

Madrid's El Pais is an honest daily in a language that has large geographical distribution. What they print is good source for a lot of papers in all of Latin America and other Romance-based languages, for instance Rumanian, who with many Italians and French or Portuguese, have the ability to read Spanish quite fluently. Also, there are more native-Spanish speakers outside of their native countries than there are native-English speakers outside of their native countries. If they like to keep abreast of what's going on in their part of the world, well, you got quite a direct hit over a worldwide audience; and it will be a little more improbable that the piece will likely be published somewhere only a week later or/and hidden down page eight.

General Janis Karpinski is a truly courageous person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why a "spanish" newspaper
Posted by: wleming on Nov 27, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did she publish in a "Spanish" newspaper?
Could it be that the American media, now a synonym
for compromised, sycophant and corrupt--would not jump on an anti government story?
The New York Times has been described as a "State Department handout./" Perhaps there is a clue there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why even question
Posted by: Basenjis on Nov 27, 2006 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the same powerful heads of government that would invade and attack a country that never lifted its hand against them, kill and mutilate innocent civilians including many children, destroy its ancient irreplacable historical treasures and ruin its infrastructure, would hesitate to use whatever means at their disposal to extract information or even just to assert their control over their lives? Janet Karpenski is indeed a very brave woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

News media complicity
Posted by: amazed again on Nov 27, 2006 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having listened to Foxtell and read stories produced by many other news media since 9/11 I am sure that there is enough evidence gathered to not only stand Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and cohorts before a judge and jury but also the editors and reporters of the lying media. Perhaps the only way will be in an international court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]