| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Gitmo General Allegedly Advised Scaring Iraqi POWs With Dogs |
| 2004-05-27 |
| From The Washington Post A U.S. Army general dispatched by senior Pentagon officials to bolster the collection of intelligence from prisoners in Iraq last fall inspired and promoted the use of guard dogs there to frighten the Iraqis, according to sworn testimony by the top U.S. intelligence officer at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to the officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the idea came from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who at the time commanded the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was implemented under a policy approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top U.S. military official in Iraq. "It was a technique I had personally discussed with General Miller, when he was here" visiting the prison, testified Pappas, head of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade and the officer placed in charge of the cellblocks at Abu Ghraib prison where abuses occurred in the wake of Millerâs visit to Baghdad between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9, 2003. "He said that they used military working dogs at Gitmo [the nickname for Guantanamo Bay], and that they were effective in setting the atmosphere for which, you know, you could get information" from the prisoners, Pappas told the Army investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, according to a transcript provided to The Washington Post. Pappas, who was under pressure from Taguba to justify the legality and appropriateness of using guard dogs to frighten detainees, said at two separate points in the Feb. 9 interview that Miller gave him the idea. He also said Miller had indicated the use of the dogs "with or without a muzzle" was "okay" in booths where prisoners were taken for interrogation. But Miller, whom the Bush administration appointed as the new head of Abu Ghraib this month, denied through a spokesman that the conversation took place. .... Pappas said, among other things, that interrogation plans involving the use of dogs, shackling, "making detainees strip down," or similar aggressive measures followed Sanchezâs policy, but were often approved by Sanchezâs deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, or by Pappas himself. .... Taguba, in a rare classified passage within his generally unclassified report, listed "using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees" as one of 13 examples of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" inflicted by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib. .... Pappas also said he did not have "a program" to inform his civilian employees, including a translator and an interrogator, of what the Geneva Conventions stated, and said he was unaware if anyone else did. He said he did not believe using force to coerce, intimidate or cause fear violated the conventions. Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who commanded the prison guards at Abu Ghraibâs cellblocks 1A and 1B until Nov. 19, when Pappas assumed control, said in an interview that Navy, Army and Air Force dog teams were used there for security purposes. But she said military intelligence officers "were responsible for assigning those dogs and where they would go." .... Pappas ... said "policies and procedures established by the [Abu Ghraib] Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center relative to detainee operations were enacted as a specific result of a visit" by Miller, who in turn has acknowledged being dispatched to Baghdad by Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone, after a conversation with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. .... Pappas said the result of Millerâs visit was that "the interrogators and analysts developed a set of rules to guide interrogations" and assigned specific military police soldiers to help interrogators -- an approach Miller had honed in Guantanamo. .... He [Pappas] said he recalled speaking to one dog handler and telling him "they could be used in interrogations" anytime according to terms spelled out in a Sept. 14, 2003, memo signed by Sanchez. That memo included the use of dogs among techniques that did not require special approval. The policy was changed on Oct. 12 to require Sanchezâs approval on a case-by-case basis for certain techniques, including having "military working dogs" present during interrogations. .... Taguba also asked if he believed the use of dogs is consistent with the Armyâs field manual. Pappas replied that he could not recall, but reiterated that Miller instigated the idea. The Army field manual bars the "exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind." .... One MP charged with abuses, Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, recalled for Army investigators an episode "when two dogs were brought into [cellblock] 1A to scare an inmate. He was naked against the wall, when they let the dogs corner him. They pulled them back enough, and the prisoner ran ... straight across the floor. ... The prisoner was cornered and the dog bit his leg. A couple seconds later, he started to move again, and the dog bit his other leg." |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #11 But since we have another point of cultural insult for the 'Raqs, then we will have to endure endless hand-wringing. A Malinois munching on a 'Raq Insurgent who was shooting at our troops. The problem is? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-27 5:42:01 PM |
| #10 FILTHY INFIDEL BEASTS!!! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-05-27 4:34:40 PM |
| #9 Lest the milk of human kindness overwhelm some of you re: the use of dogs, muzzled or unmuzzled, to intimidate Iraqi POW's, here's a little eye opener about how man's best friend has been treated by the Iraqi people for the past kazillion years: " Dogs do not live happy lives in Iraq. Considered âuncleanâ by Muslims and rarely kept as pets, most of those that you see are feral curs slinking through the streets late at night. It's normal practice for Iraqi soldiers to cull the packs with machine guns. But the commandos of Saddamâs fedayeen, terrorist-shock troops organized in the mid-1990s, sometimes tear a dog limb from limb and sink their teeth in its flesh. Repulsive brutality, after all, is a badge of honor for these troops; this particular rite of passage was even captured on a government video..." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3068456 Some famous philosopher, whose name escapes me at this moment, opined that civilization is measured by how it treats its animals. Enough said lest I appear too negative/pessimestic about the prospects of Iraq embracing democracy and taking its place with other civilized nations. From: rex, dog lover extraordinaire |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-27 1:23:04 PM |
| #8 (channeling JerseyMike) One question about this article, aside from its fifth column intent - so what? |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-27 12:55:12 PM |
| #7 Because I cut a lot out. Now that you pointed its significance, I agree with you that I should have included it. Four eyes are better than two. Thanks! |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-27 11:15:49 AM |
| #6 I agree that it is significant. Then why did you omit it originally? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-27 10:49:45 AM |
| #5 Thanks for adding it here, Robert. I agree that it is significant. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-27 10:47:56 AM |
| #4 No bite - No foul. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-27 10:36:48 AM |
#3 Mike's being very selective in what he quotes, and is leaving out important information. He left out this entire paragraph:But Pappas told Taguba that "there would be no way for us to actually monitor whether that happened. We had no formal system in place to do that -- no formal procedure" to check how interrogations were conducted. Moreover, he expressed frustration with a rule that the dogs be muzzled. "It's not very intimidating if they are muzzled," Pappas said. He added that he requested an exemption from the rule at one point, and was turned down. In other words, the dogs were to be used while muzzled, and when Pappas asked for an exemption, he didn't get it. That kinda puts a different spin on the story, IMHO. Why did you feel it necessary to omit that paragraph, Mike? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-27 10:32:22 AM |
| #2 Sounds like good judgement - he should get a commendation, not condemnation. The press is cutting the throat of their own remaining miniscule credibilty with their obsession. The American people will turn them off.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-27 9:59:06 AM |
| #1 I fail to see the issue. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-05-27 9:52:56 AM |