U.S. Civilian Working at Abu Ghraib Disputes Army's Version of His Role in

[maddezmom]

By JOEL BRINKLEY

Published: May 26, 2004


WASHINGTON, May 25 — John B. Israel, an Iraqi-American Christian and one of two civilian contractors implicated in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, returned home to California a few weeks ago and, until Monday, was living quietly with his wife, Rosa.

In an interview on Monday at their home in Santa Clarita, Calif., Ms. Israel said that her husband had not even hired a lawyer.

~snip~

Almost nothing was known about Mr. Israel before now. Among a raft of documents from the Army investigation, obtained by The New York Times, is a brief statement by Mr. Israel in which he denies any knowledge of the abuses. In it he says he arrived in Iraq on Oct. 14 and served as a translator for military intelligence. Asked if he had "witnessed any acts of abuse," he wrote: "No I have not."

~snip~

The Army report said that Mr. Israel's statement of ignorance ran contrary to the testimony of several witnesses. It also said he did not have a security clearance, and recommended that he be disciplined.

But if the failure to hold a secret or top-secret security clearance is a prosecutable offense, almost every translator working in Abu Ghraib would be found guilty. The Army records show that, of 15 Titan or SOS translators working at Abu Ghraib prison last fall, only one held a security clearance. Nearly all of them are foreign-born American citizens, and most come from backgrounds that have nothing to do with the sort of government work that would require a security clearance.

Khalid Oman, for example, was a hotel manager in Kalamazoo, Mich., before leaving for Iraq last fall to work as a translator for Titan, said his roommate, Sam Alsaud, in an interview, adding that Mr. Oman had never worked as a translator before answering a Titan advertisement. Mr. Oman is still in Iraq. "I guess he was looking for adventure," Mr. Alsaud added. "But he's upset. Things haven't turned out like he expected."

~snip~
more:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26CONT.html?th