| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Lindh Interrogation in Iraq Marked New DoD Policy | |
| 2004-06-10 | |
| From The Los Angeles Times After American Taliban recruit John Walker Lindh was captured in Afghanistan, the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instructed military intelligence officers to "take the gloves off" in interrogating him. The instructions from Rumsfeld’s legal counsel in late 2001, contained in previously undisclosed government documents, are the earliest known evidence that the Bush administration was willing to test the limits of how far it could go legally to extract information from suspected terrorists. .... What happened to Lindh, who was stripped and humiliated by his captors, foreshadowed the type of abuse documented in photographs of American soldiers tormenting Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. At the time, just weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. was desperate to find terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. After Lindh asked for a lawyer rather than talk to interrogators, he was not granted one nor was he advised of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Instead, the Pentagon ordered intelligence officers to get tough with him. The documents, read to The Times by two sources critical of how the government handled the Lindh case, show that after an Army intelligence officer began to question Lindh, a Navy admiral told the intelligence officer that "the secretary of Defense’s counsel has authorized him to ’take the gloves off’ and ask whatever he wanted." Lindh was being questioned while he was propped up naked and tied to a stretcher in interrogation sessions that went on for days, according to court papers. ... Lindh, who pleaded guilty in return for a 20-year federal prison sentence for aiding the Taliban, was a young Northern California Islamic convert who joined the Taliban army before Sept. 11, attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and was captured soon after U.S. troops invaded the country. ....
Lindh’s lawyers declined to comment on the matter this week, noting that a provision of his 2002 plea agreement stated he would not bring up the conditions under which he was held overseas. .... One Army intelligence officer said in the documents that he had been advised that "instructions had come from higher headquarters" for interrogators to coordinate with military lawyers about Lindh. "After the first hour of interrogation, [the interrogator] gave the admiral in charge of Mazar-i-Sharif a summary of what the interrogators had collected up to that point," the documents say. "The admiral told him at that point that the secretary of Defense’s counsel has authorized him to ’take the gloves off’ and ask whatever he wanted." .... Rumsfeld’s legal counsel is not named in the documents. The office was headed by William J. Haynes II. .... As the interrogation of Lindh was going on, officials in Washington were privately working out details for handling other prisoners from Afghanistan. On Dec. 28, 2001, John Yoo, then deputy assistant attorney general, told Haynes at the Pentagon that Guantanamo Bay was a perfect place for detainees because it was not a part of the sovereign United States and therefore not subject to the federal courts. But, Yoo cautioned, "there remains some litigation risk that a district court might reach the opposite result." .... | |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #16 ...nor was he advised of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. Another idiot reporter working for the LAT. Johnny Jihadi was not arrested by a cop in the US. He was an unlawful combatant fighting US troops. He has no Miranda rights. On top of that he's a US citizen aiding and abetting the enemy. He should have been roughly interrogated and shot on the spot, like US citizens caught fighting for Germany were. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2004-06-10 7:38:55 PM |
| #15 Cyber Sarge is right on. The conventions plainly state they apply only between signatories. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-06-10 6:39:34 PM |
| #14 Ed I retired four years ago and yes the military is still bound by that treaty. If fact EVERYONE has to get a briefing every six months with respect to weapons used, prisoners, and international law according to your mission. ALL of the 'Al Queda' people do not have an once of proctection under international law. We would have been well within our right to line them all up and dispatch them the day they were caught. The President made a decision not to do that, although he would be well within his rights to change that. As far as torture goes, it is a VERY effective way to extract information from the like of Al Queda (no matter what human rights groups say). The stuff at Abu Grab Ass was NOT interrogation, it was some strange guards abusing prisoners. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-06-10 5:13:49 PM |
| #13 My understanding was that part of Lindh's torture was watching Mister Rogers videos continuously for 24 hours, forced to sing, "It's a beautiful day for a terrorist" throughout. |
| Posted by: MinneMike 2004-06-10 3:50:44 PM |
| #12 That POS should have been summarily shot after he was interogated. Since that didn't happen I hope Bubba in cellblock C is having his way with little Johnnie boy. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-06-10 3:32:29 PM |
| #11 Wait, I think they expect us to be sympathetic to this POS. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-06-10 3:24:37 PM |
| #10 Nooooo...not the comfy chair!!! |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2004-06-10 1:34:31 PM |
| #9 Mike, just don't argue that these POS's deserve anything better. If we decide to treat them better, based on our values or rational choices, that's one thing, but we do it because we choose to, not because the Geneva accords apply. I, for one, would not be so nice to these terrorists... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-10 1:13:39 PM |
| #8 When I responded in #3, I was in a hurry and so answered more curtly than I should have. I'll try to answer better now. If we decide that a prisoner is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, then we still must decide how to treat that prisoner. We might nevertheless treat the prisoner in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, or we might treat him according to some other rules. The issue of proper treatment of prisoners is an important issue of great interest to many of us who are interested in the War on Terrorism, even though it apparently is of little interest to some of you who have made up your minds about it. This particular article points out that the capture of Lindh was an important historical moment in the Defense Department's articulation of the policy that has governed our treatment of prisoners since then in the War on Terror and more particularly in the military operations in Iraq. That policy has become controversial. If you aren't interested in articles about that controversy, then don't read them. Other people are interested. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-06-10 12:46:39 PM |
| #7 The concept of Geneva Convention protections applying to al-Qaida as much as they do to American GIs is based on the mistaken assumption that al-Qaida is an organization that operates according to First World military doctrines and would treat Americans - period - as well as mandated by the Conventions ... which as far as I know America never actually signed* ... * I read from Rainbow Six that the US military simply has the Geneva Convention written into its rules but is not bound to the convention itself; is that true? |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-06-10 11:35:44 AM |
| #6 Mike, I don't understand the headline over the posting. Johnny Walker Lindh was interrogated in Iraq nearly three years after being captured in Afghanistan? |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-10 11:30:30 AM |
| #5 read the headline above the posting Hell, I saw "The Los Angeles Times" and stopped right there. No reason to read further. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-06-10 10:46:31 AM |
| #4 Actually John Walker Lindh's probably had worse than a glowstick up his ass, voluntarily |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-10 10:08:16 AM |
| #3 Robert, read the headline above the posting. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-06-10 9:54:13 AM |
| #2 You don't need a bunch of lawyers to find out that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists. So after he was "stripped and humiliated", did they bring in the comfy chair? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-06-10 9:48:59 AM |
| #1 Mike, why do you keep posting this crap? Yeah, the press wants to pin Abu Ghraib on Bush, we get it. We got that point months ago. We've also gotten the point that the press will lie to do that. For example: The memos show that top government lawyers believed the administration was not bound by the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners because "Al Qaeda is merely a violent political movement or organization and not a nation-state" that had signed the international treaty. Oddly enough, this is exactly what the Geneva Conventions say!!! But there's no "bite" to reporting 'Administration Follows Letter and Spirit of Geneva Conventions', so reporters leave that out. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-10 8:57:44 AM |