How reliable a witness is Karpinsky? Hard to say -- but reliable enough to deserve a hearing. Or two: one in the House and one in the Senate, say.

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former U.S. general: MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"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.

And, of course, Rumsfeld had better not plan any European travel any time soon.

An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA (news - web sites) interrogation while suspended by his wrists, which had been handcuffed behind his back, according to investigative reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that it had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances of the death were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as “Palestinian hanging,” the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position — which human rights groups condemn as torture — was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations.

…

Al-Jamadi was one of the CIA’s “ghost” detainees at Abu Ghraib — prisoners being held secretly by the agency.

His death in November 2003 became public with the release of photos of Abu Ghraib guards giving a thumbs-up over his bruised and puffy-faced corpse, which had been packed in ice. One of those guards was Pvt. Charles Graner, who last month received 10 years in a military prison for abusing detainees.

Al-Jamadi died in a prison shower room during about a half-hour of questioning, before interrogators could extract any information, according to the documents, which consist of statements from Army prison guards to investigators with the military and the CIA’s Inspector General’s office.

…

Dr. Vincent Iacopino, director of research for Physicians for Human Rights, called the hyper-extension of the arms behind the back “clear and simple torture.” The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in a case of Palestinian hanging — a technique Iacopino said is used worldwide but named for its alleged use by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

The Washington Post reported last year that after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the CIA suspended the use of its “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including stress positions, because of fears that the agency could be accused of unsanctioned and illegal activity. The newspaper said the White House had approved the tactics.

From the Guardian, a sample from the test administered to recruits to the Iraqi Police Force:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person is: a) torture; b) interview techniques; c) nterrogation techniques; d) informative and reliable.

How sad that the United States now has an Attorney General who would get this question wrong.

Yet all the Republicans — including POW torture victim John McCain — and six Democrats (including the quisling-like Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and, sadly, our own Bill Nelson from Florida) voted to confirm. The final vote showed only 36 against, too few to sustain the filibuster which was thus not attempted, a tactical decision that I will not second guess.

A vote for Bush, I said before the election, is a vote for torture. We reap now the bitter fruits of what our fellow citizens then sowed.

May they (and the rest of us too) not get what they deserve.

The new accusations generally concern the behavior of American Special Forces, as opposed to prison guards or interrogators, who have been accused at Abu Ghraib.

Rather, it’s yet another sign of a pattern and practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union released documents on Monday describing complaints of serious abuse of Iraqi civilians, including reports of electric shocks and forced sodomy, and accused the military of not thoroughly investigating the cases.

The documents list dozens of allegations of abuse at American detention centers - the use of cigarettes to burn prisoners, aggressive dogs, electric shocks, sexual humiliation and beatings - that began at about the same time such acts were occurring at Abu Ghraib prison.

But it is not always clear whether every case described is a new incident.

Based only on the public evidence to date, how much is the ordinary carnage and inhumanity of war, and how much is something that trickled down from above, may be hard to say in a way that would satisfy the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. But there seems to be the makings of at the very least a very strong case that is more than circumstantial. If a prosecutor were to tackle this with the aggressiveness with which we pursue Mafia cases, I think we’d see something. But there’s no sign yet of any desire to go after general officers, or even mid-level officers, much less ranking civilians.

Belgium recently changed its law to make it very difficult to launch war crimes prosecutions against foreign officials, and the supreme court there recently dismissed an attempted lawsuit against Bush. But meanwhile, a significant segment of Belgian public opinion appears to subscribe to the sentiment symbolized by this Wanted poster issued by a Belgian activist group:

Recall that the International Criminal Court agreement (.pdf) (to which the US is not a party) would prohibit these sorts of trials against our officials so long as we set our own house in order. But we are not doing that.

I wonder how long it will take the new Iraqi government to join the ICC? Joining would give the ICC jurisdiction over all actions on Iraqi soil dating after the accession. Regardless of whether they were committed by Iraqis. Then again, joining the ICC without agreeing to exclude jurisdiction against US forces would run Iraq into retaliation from the US: the US has halted military assistance to several nations that have refused to sign ‘Article 98 agreements’ by which they promise not to surrender US nationals to the ICC.

Update: If I had to bet right now, I’d bet it’s the wanton harm to civilians (which I suspect is vastly underreported in the US) that would be most likely to trigger a trial, not the prisoner abuse. But should these allegations of systematic rape in captivity, coupled with claims that the Pentagon is stonewalling by trying to avoid inquiries prove to be true, that might alter the odds.

PS. As noted in the comments, my intent in this particular post was to be positive, not normative. Under what circumstances if any a foreign war crimes trial of a former US President or Cabinet official could ever be be a good thing is very hard for me to think coherently about, as I so passionately want the US to act in a way that makes the whole question absurd.

The New York Times > Washington > Gonzales Says ‘02 Policy on Detainees Doesn’t Bind C.I.A.: Officers of the Central Intelligence Agency and other nonmilitary personnel fall outside the bounds of a 2002 directive issued by President Bush that pledged the humane treatment of prisoners in American custody, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, said in documents released on Tuesday.

I don’t care how they parse it: waterboarding — that’s repeated near drowning — is torture in my book.

Politics News Article | Reuters.com: Alberto Gonzales, seeking to win Senate confirmation as President Bush’s attorney general, declared that any torture by American personnel would be unlawful, according to written responses released on Tuesday to questions by senators.

“As the president has made clear, the United States will not engage in torture and U.S. personnel are prohibited from doing so,” Gonzales wrote in response to a question by assistant Senate Democratic leader Richard Durbin of Illinois.

The problem, which I’ve tried to explain in somewhat soporific detail in posts here, here, here, here, here and here, is that Congress (at the urging of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush) has defined the term “torture” exceedingly narrowly—so narrowly, in fact, that OLC has concluded it does not cover techniques such as waterboarding, threats of live burial, and threats of rendition to nations that do torture. Those forms of highly coercive interrogation, going just up to the line of “torture” without going over, are generally unlawful, not

because they are “torture,” but because they fall within the category of conduct denominated “cruel, inhuman and degrading (“CID”) treatment,” i.e., conduct that “shocks the conscience” and hence would violate due process if it occurred within the U.S. Such CID treatment is categorically off limits to the military by virtue of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the President’s directive that the military treat all detainees “humanely.” Such CID treatment is also categorically prohibited — even for the CIA — with respect to detainees protected by the Geneva Conventions; and such CID treatment would (by definition) be unconstitutional — even for the CIA and even as applied to Al Qaeda detainees — here in the U.S.

But the Administration has concluded the CID treatment is not unlawful when the CIA interrogates Al Qaeda suspects outside U.S. jurisdiction.

The critical enabling decision was the president’s insistence that prisoners in the war on terror be deemed ”unlawful combatants” rather than prisoners of war. …

The president’s underlings got the mixed message. …

What’s notable about the incidents of torture and abuse is first, their common features, and second, their geographical reach. No one has any reason to believe any longer that these incidents were restricted to one prison near Baghdad. They were everywhere: from Guantánamo Bay to Afghanistan, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi and Tikrit and, for all we know, in any number of hidden jails affecting ”ghost detainees” kept from the purview of the Red Cross. They were committed by the Marines, the Army, the Military Police, Navy Seals, reservists, Special Forces and on and on. …

Whether we decide to call this kind of treatment ”abuse” or some other euphemism, there is no doubt what it was in the minds of the American soldiers who perpetrated it. They believed in torture. And many believed it was sanctioned from above. …

Who was responsible? There are various levels of accountability. But it seems unmistakable from these documents that decisions made by the president himself and the secretary of defense contributed to confusion, vagueness and disarray, which, in turn, led directly to abuse and torture. The president bears sole responsibility for ignoring Colin Powell’s noble warnings. …

Worse, the president has never acknowledged the scope or the real gravity of what has taken place. His first instinct was to minimize the issue; later, his main references to it were a couple of sentences claiming that the abuses were the work of a handful of miscreants, rather than a consequence of his own decisions. …

And the damage done was intensified by President Bush’s refusal to discipline those who helped make this happen. A president who truly recognized the moral and strategic calamity of this failure would have fired everyone responsible. But the vice president’s response to criticism of the defense secretary in the wake of Abu Ghraib was to say, ”Get off his back.” In fact, those with real responsibility for the disaster were rewarded. Rumsfeld was kept on for the second term, while the man who warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell, was seemingly nudged out. … Alberto R. Gonzales, who wrote memos that validated the decision to grant Geneva status to inmates solely at the president’s discretion, is now nominated to the highest law enforcement job in the country: attorney general. The man who paved the way for the torture of prisoners is to be entrusted with safeguarding the civil rights of Americans. It is astonishing he has been nominated, and even more astonishing that he will almost certainly be confirmed.

But in a democracy, the responsibility is also wider. Did those of us who fought so passionately for a ruthless war against terrorists give an unwitting green light to these abuses? Were we naïve in believing that characterizing complex conflicts from Afghanistan to Iraq as a single simple war against ”evil” might not filter down and lead to decisions that could dehumanize the enemy and lead to abuse? Did our conviction of our own rightness in this struggle make it hard for us to acknowledge when that good cause had become endangered? I fear the answer to each of these questions is yes.

…

I’m not saying that those who unwittingly made this torture possible are as guilty as those who inflicted it. I am saying that when the results are this horrifying, it’s worth a thorough reassessment of rhetoric and war methods. Perhaps the saddest evidence of our communal denial in this respect was the election campaign. The fact that American soldiers were guilty of torturing inmates to death barely came up. It went unmentioned in every one of the three presidential debates. John F. Kerry, the ”heroic” protester of Vietnam, ducked the issue out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Or a belief that the American public ultimately did not care, that the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocents? I fear it was the last of these. Worse, I fear he may have been right.

OK, one might have preferred to see this before the election, but better late than later.