Pentagon changes Army Field Manual governing interrogation of prisoners

[seafan]

This nest of American traitors is in deep, deep trouble.

The Pentagon is now changing the 1992 Army Field Manual rules for interrogation of prisoners, with the intent to cover this administration's criminal violations of it.


I apologize for the graphic nature of the photos that follow in this post. They were included to demonstrate starkly the criminality of this administration, which requires arrest, trial and imprisonment.



U.S. President George W. Bush makes remarks on the global war on terror to the Military Officers Association of America in Washington September 5, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young












U.S. moves terrorism suspects out of CIA custody

By Steve Holland and Will Dunham
6 September 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has moved 14 key terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons to military control, while the Pentagon banned a series of what it called abusive interrogation tactics for all detainees, officials said on Wednesday.

snip

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the announcement was an acknowledgment of the existence of the CIA program to interrogate high-value terrorism suspects.
Up to now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of the CIA prisons, which were revealed by the Washington Post last year, sparking international criticism of the Bush administration.

snip

Separately, the Pentagon unveiled long-awaited changes to the 1992 Army Field Manual governing the interrogation of prisoners held by the U.S. military.
The changes came more than two years after the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal and criticism from human rights activists over treatment of Guantanamo detainees.

snip

The White House also was expected to unveil proposed legislation to set the rules for conducting trials of foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
The Army Field Manual explicitly prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and mentions eight specific prohibitions, said Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

Interrogators may not force a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner, and cannot place hoods or sacks over a detainee's head or use duct tape over his eyes. They cannot beat or electrically shock or burn a detainee or inflict other forms of physical pain.
They may not use "water boarding," a type of simulated drowning, or perform mock executions. They may not use treatment that would lead to heat injury or deprive detainees of the necessary food, water and medical care. And they may not use dogs in any aspect of interrogations.

It is time to arrest and bring our own war criminals to justice.

The world is crying out.

[peacetalksforall]

1. Be ready. When Pentagon and WH staff are brought to

trial with or without interim Congressinal Hearings, the Pentagon and the WH and their teams of lawyers and propagandists are going to try to obfuscate their roles and crimes by muddying what they mean by quoting post-rewrite handbook law when they mean pre-rewrites. In other words, they will jumble the history and timelines of the actions vs the rules and interpretations as of any timeline to make them look innocent at all costs. I preduct Gonzales alone will require about 24 lawyers with 24 assistants. And who knows about Ashcroft. Maybe more.

[seafan]

2. A kick for the night. n/t

[seafan]

3. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez memo authorized extreme interrogation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1448282,00.html?gusrc=rss">General approved extreme interrogation methods

James Sturcke
Wednesday March 30, 2005

The highest-ranking US general in Iraq authorised the use of interrogation techniques that included sleep manipulation, stress positions and the use of dogs to "exploit Arab fears" of them, it emerged today.

A memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez authorised 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 that exceeded limits in the army's own field manual and four that it admitted risked falling foul of international law, the Geneva conventions or accepted standards on the humane treatment of prisoners.
The memo, dated September 14 2003, also stated that the Iraq interrogation policy was modelled on the one used at Guantánamo Bay "but modified for applicability to a theater of war in which the Geneva conventions apply".

On Friday, a US court ordered the papers' release under the American Freedom of Information Act, following a request by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The memo clearly establishes that Gen Sanchez authorised unlawful interrogation techniques for use in Iraq, and, in particular, these techniques violate the Geneva conventions and the army's own field manual governing interrogations," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in a statement. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

snip


Gen Sanchez ordered that his personal approval should be gained before the most controversial techniques were used. He has denied that he gave that permission. The ACLU has a lawsuit pending against Gen Sanchez alleging direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in US military custody.
The Abu Ghraib scandal, in which US forces physically abused and sexually humiliated Iraqi prisoners at a jail on the outskirts of Baghdad, occurred on during Gen Sanchez's command. Gen George Casey replaced him as top commander in Iraq nine months ago.

The ACLU said the Pentagon initially refused to release the memo on national security grounds.

(Emphasis added)



And from China Daily, 3-30-05

The ACLU said the Pentagon initially refused to release the Sanchez memo on national-security grounds.

"It is apparent that the government has been holding this document not out of any genuine concern that it will compromise national security but to protect itself from embarrassment," Singh said.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld denied that as a motivation, telling a Pentagon briefing, "If anyone can validate that allegation, I'd be happy to look into it, but I doubt that they can. It sounds like a political charge."