The photos of them mugging with dead bodies? Those are people who died under authorized interrogation.

The “officially” officially-sanctioned prisoner treatment was often as bad, if not worse.

It is Reynolds and Shannon Love, not the Senate report or Sullivan, who are limiting their commentary to the unauthorized night-shift adventures of the hillbilly jailers. The report is quite clear, as numerous quotes above demonstrate, that it is dealing with the official, authorized torture that was conducted as part of the interrogations carried out there.

No, Shannon, Sullivan isn’t lying about what’s in the report. You are, and Reynolds is. This isn’t a description of some off-duty hanky-panky encouraged by an “atmosphere,” but of the practices used in authorized interrogations.

England and Graner didn’t murder al-Jamadi.

He died under interrogation, using a “stress position” technique explicitly authorized by the administration.

At Abu Ghraib.

But by all means, keep pretending that the enlisted personnel’s S&M adventures were all that happened there.

In fact, it has long been established that precisely the torture techniques authorized and ordered by the administration – the sleep deprivation, the freezing, the sensory deprivation, the “stress positions” – that were found at Guantanamo and Baghram were practiced at Abu Ghraib, by interrogators, as part of the interrogations they were ordered to perform.

That such practices set a tone for the hillbilly jailers is a rather nasty side effect, but unlike England and her beau, the interrogators acting in an official capacity, in accordance with the orders they were given and using the techniques they were ordered to use, killed several people.

I’m sorry; this is really not clear to me.

Nudity, hooding, and leashing were SERE techniques. The soldiers convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal used nudity, hooding, and leashing. How were the soldiers convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal not “the soldiers using the SERE techniques?”

Its grossly unfair to lump those who follow the SSRE with England and her group of sadistic perverts.

I assume that by SSRE, you mean SERE. Again, from the report:

“During the resistance phase of SERE training, U.S. military personnel are exposed to physical and psychological pressures (SERE techniques) designed to simulate conditions to which they might be subject if taken prisoner by enemies that did not abide by the Geneva Conventions. As one JPRA instructor explained, SERE training is “based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years.” The techniques used in SERE school, based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean war to elicit false confessions, include stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, disrupting their sleep, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. It can also include face and body slaps and until recently, for some who attended the Navy’s SERE school, it included waterboarding.
(U) Typically, those who play the part of interrogators in SERE school neither are trained interrogators nor are they qualified to be. These role players are not trained to obtain reliable intelligence information from detainees. Their job is to train our personnel to resist providing reliable information to our enemies.”

There is not some noble military tradition to “follow the SSRE.” The SERE techniques were designed to simulate illegal techniques used by our enemies to elicit false confessions, and they were never designed to actually be used by Americans.

The SERE techniques are sadistic by design. I fail to see how they would have been justified or less perverted if the guards had asked the prisoners more questions afterwards.

Both Lynndie England and Charles Graner have claimed that they were following orders, and we now see that those techniques were part of the SOP at Abu Ghraib. Is it really that inconceivable that a “few bad apples” took the fall for misguided policies and poor oversight?

I will concede that George W. Bush did not personally order Lynndie England to “strip prisoners #43-50 and stack them in a pyramid” or “put prisoner #22 on a leash.

So you conceed that Sullivan lied?

Then, soldiers at Abu Ghraib abused prisoners, in many cases using those exact same SERE techniques, such as hooding, forced nudity, and treating prisoners like animals.

The soldiers using the SERE techniques where not the same soldiers convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Two entirely different sets of soldiers reporting to two different commanding officers.

Are you honestly arguing that Lynndie England just happened to come up with the idea to strip prisoners, hood them, and put them on leashes all by herself, and that it is a coincidence that those specific techniques were authorized by those in command?

Yes, because if you had ever bothered to read anything about prison abuse scandals of the past you would have known all the actions they carried out had occurred in other incidents in other prisons throughout history. After all, there are only so many ways to abuse people with the materials laying around in a prison. If not, where did they get the ideas for abuse that were in no way part of SSRE?

Like I said, this report covers absolutely no ground. England et al where not under orders and where fact in direct contradiction of orders i.e. they were not authorized to use ANY interrogation methods even if others were.

I realize that the distinction seems small to people who think the military has little more discipline than a sports team but it matters a lot to the honor of those who served. Its grossly unfair to lump those who follow the SSRE with England and her group of sadistic perverts.

And it is a flat out lie to say that Bush, Rumsfield or anyone else authorized what they did.

Again, the report never uses the phrase “moral climate,” nor any words to that effect.

I will concede that George W. Bush did not personally order Lynndie England to “strip prisoners #43-50 and stack them in a pyramid” or “put prisoner #22 on a leash.”

Here is what did happen:

• SERE techniques, which include “stripping students of their clothing,” “putting hoods over their heads,” and “treating them like animals” were specifically approved by senior members of the administration, and torture was redefined to grant them an air of legality. “Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the techniques without apparently providing any written guidance as to how they should be administered.”

• “Shortly after Secretary Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 approval… the techniques – and the fact the Secretary had authorized them – became known to interrogators in Afghanistan. A copy of the Secretary’s memo was sent from GTMO to Afghanistan.”

• ”From Afghanistan, the techniques made their way to Iraq. According to the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG), at the beginning of the Iraq war, special mission unit forces in Iraq ‘used a January 2003 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which had been developed for operations in Afghanistan.’”

• ”In the summer of 2003, Captain Wood, who by that time was the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib, obtained a copy of the Special Mission Unit interrogation policy and submitted it, virtually unchanged, to her chain of command as proposed policy. ”

• “Captain Wood submitted her proposed policy around the same time that a message was being conveyed that interrogators should be more aggressive with detainees. In mid-August 2003, an email from staff at Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) headquarters in Iraq requested that subordinate units provide input for a ‘wish list’ of interrogation techniques, stated that ‘the gloves are coming off,’ and said ‘we want these detainees broken.’”

So, to sum up, people at the highest levels of command explicitly approved abusive procedures without setting guidelines for their use. Those orders were passed down the line to commanding officers in Afghanistan and Iraq, including to the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib, along with orders to break the detainees. Then, soldiers at Abu Ghraib abused prisoners, in many cases using those exact same SERE techniques, such as hooding, forced nudity, and treating prisoners like animals.

Are you honestly arguing that Lynndie England just happened to come up with the idea to strip prisoners, hood them, and put them on leashes all by herself, and that it is a coincidence that those specific techniques were authorized by those in command?

Some of this discussion (like the discussion around water coolers) seems to arise from the sense that only if certain policies are encouraged are they likely to happen.

The problem with Abu Ghraib was insufficient authority was exercised. The excuse of those directly in the chain of command was not that they – and their soldiers – were expected to aimlessly humiliate prisoners but, rather, that they were too overburdened to police those below. Whether we need to accept that as reason or not, it does indicate responsibility.

It takes energy and a strong command structure to encourage the best in others. Those isolated, late night cell blocks give power to guards; isolation may nurture grace but sometimes less positive attributes. Those who buy into the “noble savage” believe such acts only occur from the top down.

An emphasis on personal responsibility is important. I’ve always suspected that looking into the practices at the jails in America where these jerks worked before they came to Iraq would uncover unpleasant uses of power – especially on the night shift. They did not become Mr. Hydes when Dr. Jekyll exchanged a state uniform for a national one. Those people were jerks. They belonged in jail. They are in jail.

That had little or nothing to do with whatever policies were officially approved or not by Bush or anyone else. That such people grab for cover is not surprising. We gravitate to stories that cover us – how often do we believe gossip that reinforces our sense of our own “rightness”? How often do we hear someone describe another as a “hater” with spittle coming out of his mouth? We are all too likely to tell ourselves, yes, I cheat on my wife, but doesn’t everybody? That doesn’t mean everyone does it – nor that he waited to cheat until he felt sanctioned by the state; they often feel sanctioned by gossip, their own interpretations. And, of course, those interpretations are reinforced by remarks by the opponents of this administration far more often than by the administration itself.

Your argument (or more accurately, willfully obtuse mischaracterization) doesn’t hold water. It boils down to “since Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et. al, did not personally call Lindy England to tell her to torture these prisoners then they are innocent of all culpability.”

p.s. “Your lying.” isn’t a sentence. (“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” is a sentence.) Please strive to be grammatically correct when insulting your readers… ;^)

I did read the report. If you read the context of what you actually quote you see that there is no evidence presented that the abuses of Abu Ghraid occurred under orders. They merely assert that Bush created a moral climate.

There is no doubt that Bush ordered the use of enhanced interrogation and that he ordered its use against some illegal combatants in every area of combat. That does not translate into ordering the abuses committed at Abu Ghraid which is what Sullivan claimed.

He lied. Your lying.

That’s the point. If you assume that all of your prisoners are potential terrorists with valuable information, and you redefine “interrogation” to include prolonged psychological and physical abuse, then there is no distinction between “harsh interrogation” and “prisoner abuse.” You can justify any kind of sadistic activity on the grounds that it might “break” some prisoner and convince them to talk.

Where was the policy to abuse prisoners? You’re saying that there was a policy to use harsh interrogation methods on prisoners. That’s not the same thing, even if you think we shouldn’t use such interrogation methods. The perpetrators of AG were engaging in gratuitous abuse, not interrogation, and asserting that our interrogation policy lead to abuse (not “atrocities”) is a statement of opinion that isn’t supported by the fact that few AG-type incidents occurred.

And if you don’t like our use of harsh interrogation methods, what do you suggest we use instead?

If the abuse of AG prisoners was the result of Administration policy, even informal policy, why has this sort of abuse been a rare exception rather than the rule? And why would the Army investigate the abuse rather than cover it up?

If it was in fact rare, that would certainly go some distance toward exonerating the administration. From the exiting reports, it does not appear to have been rare, though maybe we have different ideas about what constitutes rarity.

It’s easy to think of several reasons that the Army investigated the abuse. For one, there are vast numbers of good and vigilant people serving in our armed forces. That might have been enough. On the other hand, they might well have been kept in the dark. It’s likely that the administration was shamed into it. We probably would not have seen those investigations without Seymour Hersh’s or 60 Minutes’ reporting on AG.

Here are a few phrases which you will not find anywhere in the report: “moral climate,” “atmosphere,” “enhanced interrogation.”

Here are a few phrases which you will find in the report:

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

“Interrogation policies endorsed by senior military and civilian officials authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques were a major cause of the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.”

“The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO.”

“Interrogation techniques used by the Special Mission Unit Task Force eventually made their way into Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued for all U.S. forces in Iraq. In the summer of 2003, Captain Wood, who by that time was the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib, obtained a copy of the Special Mission Unit interrogation policy and submitted it, virtually unchanged, to her chain of command as proposed policy.”

“SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.”

“Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 approval of Mr. Haynes’s recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.“