Abu Ghraib - The Location, Atmosphere, and Situation at Abu Ghraib by September 2003

The 372 Military Police Unit was trained for operation support to combat. This could be anything from guarding and protecting base sites to securing a prisoner of war. What they had not been trained for were corrections officers. Police training and corrections training are completely different and have completely different functions.

 The 372 MP unit relieved the 72 MP unit in Iraq with less than 300 total in their unit. They were asked in July and Aug to guard less than a thousand inmates at Abu Ghraib. The 372 MP unit described this place as nightmarish. Freddy Kruger meets The Shining.

By September 2003 Abu Ghraib had well over 6,000 inmates with the same unit of less than 300 guarding them. This unit with no formal corrections training was now guarding over 6,000 inmates in a dungeon unsuitable for passing American standards for jail inspections. This was a bomb waiting to explode with MP not trained watching Iraqi detainees in the worst

section or part of the war. At the same time America was trying to get out of Iraq with no foreseeable future plans of handing this prison over to anyone from Iraq.

American Techniques of War and Iraqi

Based on the documentary, The film The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, American soldiers used techniques that were undesirable in Iraq in 2003. We understand American Soldiers were seeking actionable intelligence.  Sometimes the intelligence gathered was incomplete or should have lacked actionable consequences on the intelligence alone. According to one source in this film American Soldiers were profiling based on assumptions.

For example, if the American Soldier had intelligence that a suspect in making IED bombs was driving black opal vehicle then the American Soldiers were rounding up everyone with black opal vehicles. The assumption we make in the film is there are many black opal vehicles and this intelligence alone should be deemed insufficient to round up war combatants. If  there were only two black opal vehicles and the American Soldiers gathered up both subjects I believe the US would have accepted this practice as actionable. If the intelligence identified a Muslim Male with a beard between the age of twenty and thirty five then this intelligence alone should have been deemed insufficient unless you were able to link this to a subject driving a black opal vehicle. Then both unactionable pieces of intelligence become actionable when linked together. 

Iraqi citizens were arrested and detained without just cause. It was later believed that some Iraqi citizens came to hate and not trust American Soldiers. It was the lack of respect and demoralization that upset many Iraqi citizens. At the same time someone somewhere was trying to kill the American Soldier and they were trying to protect the ones needing protecting and kill the ones trying to kill. It was an awful situation brought on by awful policy and practices with undefined goals and agendas.    

The Justice Department and the UN Convention against Torture

The United States, being the civilized nation that they are, have to follow rules and guidelines. The US had to adhere to The UN convention rules against torture. The United States had a necessary need to extract intelligence from detainees. The United States believed that military combatants who did not practice or adhere to any rules that Americans had to follow that they deserved the bare minimum standards against torture.

The justice department tried to clearly define the word torture. Torture was basically defined as not losing function of your organs or death. This definition was loosely defined and allowed much leeway for Americans to “interrogate” these detained combatants.

Once critic commented, this definition of torture was being followed and used by Saddam Hussein that led to outrage and invasion of his country. Another critic could not believe that a lawyer in the justice department could even think of such lowly standards to publish them on a piece of paper, but now that had become US policy. There were many critics to using this type of definition of torture.   

   

Geneva Conventions and the War on Terror

In 1949 The United States signed the declaration that prohibited torture, outrages on personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners of war. The United States was active in war and wanted to make sure that if American Soldiers were taken captive they were treated humanely. The Unites States had clearly been the leader in leading by example and often times bragged how the exceeded the minimum standards of treating prisoners of war.

In 2002 in The United States war on terror President Bush declared the detainees of war on terror were evil combatants and not prisoners of war. This issue first came up in the treatment of detainees from Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees from Afghanistan. The war that Al-Qaeda waged against Americans was one against citizens, personal property, while they hid in disguises and blended in as ordinary people. This was not a conventional war and President Bush determined for the first time in the US The rules of the Genevea Conventions would not apply to detainees of Afghanistan and later Iraq.         

 Report on abu ghraib

  In 2003 The Unites States Army had firmly established bases inside Iraq. There seemed to be no conventional war opposition. There also seemed to lack support from The Iraqi’s that welcomed the US Soldiers. The Bush Administration had planned Saddam Hussein would be toppled. The Iraqi’s would be thankful for The US help and celebrate. The US would help Iraq build a Democracy and wave good bye to our new friend on our way out.

 Instead, The US Army was facing a different threat, an insurgency. The US armed forces were facing IED’s, suicide attacks, and car bombs. There was no face to this attack. There was no known financing, people, or places for the enemy. The US Army quickly found they were responding and being reactive to offensive threats and bombs.

  In 2003 The US Army decided they need intelligence for this new enemy they faced. There was several ways they found to detain Iraqi’s. Some battalions would interview 25 Iraqi’s and detain 3 for further questioning. Some battalions would detain the 25 and the 25 extra Iraqi’s who knew the first 25. There were no set criteria for an Iraqi to be detained.

 The US Army believed The Bush Administration that our war in Iraq was part of a war on terror so they believed the Iraqi’s were terrorists. Certainly, but not all, the detainees were average Iraqi citizens. Many of these detainees became enemies of The US only after they were detained and humiliated.

 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld allowed and encouraged the torture and treatment of detainees. This need for more intelligence from this faceless war they were fighting led to the need for getting up to the minute real time intelligence. These bombings and attacks showed no signs of slowing even after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison later became public which as one soldier later said, “Some assholes just lost the war for us.” (Fiasco, Thomas E. Ricks, 290).

As the need for actionable intelligence arose, the realization dawned, that pre-war planning had not including planning for detainee operations.  

The "Hard Site" and the Failure of "Intelligence" at Abu Ghraib

The “hard site” was a high security area for high security prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. There were over 1,000 prisoners or war detainees in the hard site. There were 6 to 7 guards watching these detainees.   The United States was constantly under attack from the insurgency. Buildings were being blown up. People were dying from road side bombs. The enemy had no face. America felt the best way to defeat this faceless enemy was to gain intelligence about the enemy.

As a result, many of the detainees were prisoners waiting to be interviewed to see if they had any intelligence to help American Soldiers. The guards themselves were being told they were watching the worst of the worst prisoners. These detainees were the al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Saddam Hussein supporters.

  The intelligence agents who were interviewing these detainees were determining these detainees had no intelligence to talk about. The intelligence agents believed these detainees from Abu Ghraib weren’t talking because they had no intelligence to share. At the same time Donald Rumsfeld was screaming for actionable intelligence to come from Abu Ghraib.   

Major General Geoffrey Miller, Donald Rumsfeld, Ricardo Sanchez and Interrogation Techniques

Major General Miller was given permission from Donald Rumsfeld to use some extreme interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where The US had there most “valued” detainees through an action memo that later became declassified. General Miller was re-assigned to Iraq eight months after given this permission for these interrogation techniques.

The White House wanted intelligence and Donald Rumsfeld believed the best way to get that was through these interrogations. General Miller believed the most effective methods for interrogation was to treat the detainees like dogs.

Some of the techniques that were being used were sensory disorientation like extreme darkness or light as well as stress positions like standing for long periods of time.

On September 14, 2003 the overall commander of Iraq General Sanchez issued an order allowing the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by Americans on prisoners. One month later General Sanchez rescinded some of the previous allowed techniques.

 Abu Ghraib prison guards described nakedness and restraint where common. It was common to see a prisoner naked handcuffed to something. Sometimes with panties or sacks on their heads.

Military Police moved to Military Intelligence staff

The military police were responsible for the incarceration of the detainees. Responsibility of detention officers generally included the protection and medical care of the detainees. Detention personnel generally made sure detainees were fed and cared for.

 When the decision was made to carry the Iraq military police detention officers under the military intelligence agency the responsibilities of the military police officers changed. Now, the military police officers were part of the interrogation staff. Their role now included “softening up” the detainees by different methods. Some of the methods included watching naked Iraqi’s shower, throw water on them while they sleep, torture them with loud music, or even making to stand for long periods of time.  

    

What happened Abu Ghraib?

There was a prison Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq war. Military police often “sofeten up” their detainees that far exceeded that standards and morals of American Jail Standards. These military police officers were often troubled b things they were doing and things they were seeing. They often heard cries and saw painful and morally disgusting things be done to Iraqi detainees.

Seymour wrote in the New Yorker that these actions and torture treatments being carried out by the military police were all apart of policy created by Donald Rumsfeld. The intelligence officers who were doing the interrogations often thank the military police and told them what a good job they were doing “softening up” the detainees before the interrogations.

There were a handful of detainees who took to rioting in 2003. These seven or so detainees were made to strip and forced to lay on top of each other. At one point the detainees were positioned to appear as if they were performing and receiving oral sex.  

An example was made of these detainees. Some of the military police assumed these rioters were going to be interrogated so they commenced to softening the up.

The interrogation themselves was not recorded and not photographed. From interviews it appears far worse things happened in interrogation rooms than in prison. One detainee made the comment that please misters don’t take me in that room hurt real badly. There has been one confirmed homicide coming from the interrogation rooms. It was thought by some detainees would say anything and often unreliable while being tortured.     

Scandal rocks the world

Military Police Private Joseph Darby asked MP Grainer for some pictures to copy of Iraq. Grainer gave Darby two CD’s of pictures and said copy whichever ones you like. Darby saw some pictures of abuse on the CD’s and turned them over to Military Criminal Investigators.

The Inv gave the military police options to destroy any evidence pictures or recordings of abuse and walk away free. The guards agreed to do this. Darby was kept secret for bringing forward these accusations.

As a democratic society that we live in eventually this scandal was brought to the public’s attention. In 2004 the New Yorker and 60 minutes II aired the pictures and told the stories of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

Donald Rumsfeld personally thanked Darby for bringing forward this scandal which immediately put Darby in fear of his life. The MP’s who had been given commendations for outstanding duty were now being blamed for animal house activity. The Army found these MP’s who had recently graduated boot camp with no training in detaining prisoners took it upon themselves to treat Iraqi prisoners this way.

The American people are smarter than that. These techniques were specifically designed to torture Arab men at Guantanamo Bay. The stress positions and techniques being used were studied and developed and were listed as means of torture and punishment. General Miller wanted these detainees “soften up” prior to being interrogated. These 7 soldiers who were charged with crimes and convicted were being targeted as animal house guards.

Almost no one believes the MP’s acted alone. Almost all believe the pentagon used these soldiers as scapegoats. Everyone, regardless of orders, is responsible for their own behavior.                      

What did Antonio Taguba say in his report on the prison scandal in May 2004?

General Antonio M. Taguba was requested from Kuwait to come investigate the abuse at Abu Ghraib. General Taguba was thorough in his investigation and often briefed senior military officials on progress. General Taguba published a report on his findings which was later leaked to the public.

General Taguba was requested at the Senate hearings about the abuse at Abu Ghraib. When General Taguba arrived in the white house he was greeted by Donald Rumsfeld with sarcasm. General Taguba  sat and watched the secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld lie or at least not tell the truth to congress while under oath.

General Taguba recognized that senior military officials and Civilian chiefs of staff under the president were distancing themselves rather quickly away from this abused scandal. It was disheartening to watch and listen to mistruths being spoken and General Taguba himself who had investigated and found the truth recognized his ignorance.  General Taguba assumed the White House wanted to know the truth.  

Senate Arms Committee Report

In 2008 The Senate Arms Committee released a report on the investigation of the treatment or mistreatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib.  While much of the investigation remains classified, there was enough released to show that top US Officials were responsible for the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Donald Rumsfeld was the top official who praised and encouraged the methods being used for interrogations. He later withdrew some of the harshest techniques they were using. It seemed military police were using techniques and stressors that had been used in interrogations. The Senate Arms Committee found it was no coincidence that the techniques the soldiers at the bottom of the hierarchy were using were not random acts but deliberate thought at techniques.

This seems to be a case where publicly no one will stand up and say that these soldiers were following orders, but it clearly looks as if these soldiers were following orders.  Military Police Graner who was found to have committed the most horrible of acts had received a citation of praise for his performance at this very prison prior to the abuse being made public. The Senate Arms committee investigation into the abuse took 18 months and was clearly the most thorough report done. This was a report done by senate and civilians who clearly had the authority to request information and ask the right questions to the right people.         

Where are England and Graner now? 

Cpl Army Reserve Charles Graner was convicted of crimes in the abuse of Abu Ghraib detainees of Iraqi citizens. Graner was believed to be the ring leader and was described as the bad boy with charm that was manipulative. Graner was convicted of stacking naked detainees in a pyramid, knocking one detainee out with a head punch, and forcing detainees to masturbate. Graner received the longest sentence of any of the soldiers who were convicted of the abuse. Graner was sentenced to 10 years and completed 61/2 years before being released. Graner married another defendant Megan Ambuhl. His current whereabouts are unknown, although he is on supervision outside of detention until 12/25/2014.

Graner fathered a child with fellow defendant Lynndie England. England is the face remembered most in all the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib. England was sentenced for 3 years for her part and was released after a year and a half. England is now a convicted felon and a single mom. England has moved back home and is raising her son in her mothers house. She has had no success landing a job and is still a public figure. England really has no feelings on what happened and where she goes from here. From everything we know about England she appears to be one of a follower or repeater than someone who took charge on her own.  

Graner, England, and the other United States Soldiers defendants are believed by some to be a few bad soldiers in the Service who put a stain and a black eye on The United States. The Arab world was outraged and disgusted of the treatment of their brothers and sisters in our custody. Some believe that Graner, England, and these US Soldiers were doing their job. These techniques, stressors, and punishments were requested by military intelligence in order to soften up there interrogations. It was likely these soldiers were being told they were saving America from terrorists and further war by their actions and abuse of detainees. It was believed these US Soldiers were being told they were doing a good job and keep it up. Graner, England, and these US Soldiers had to stand and take responsibility for their own actions regardless of what they may or may not have been told to do. There is not a fine line between right and wrong and as some suggest. Right is always right and wrong is always wrong.