[Peace-discuss] hersch on torture

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
Issue of 2004-05-10
Posted 2004-04-30
In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was 
one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and 
vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate 
count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in 
twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits. 

In the looting that followed the regime’s collapse, last April, the huge 
prison complex, by then deserted, was stripped of everything that could be 
removed, including doors, windows, and bricks. The coalition authorities had the 
floors tiled, cells cleaned and repaired, and toilets, showers, and a new medical 
center added. Abu Ghraib was now a U.S. military prison. Most of the 
prisoners, however—by the fall there were several thousand, including women and 
teen-agers—were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps 
and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: 
common criminals; security detainees suspected of “crimes against the 
coalition”; and a small number of suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency 
against the coalition forces. 

Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named 
commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military 
prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was 
an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the 
Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. 
Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four 
hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling 
prisoners.

General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a 
business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In 
an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for 
many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in 
prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to 
leave.”

A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly 
suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by 
Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under 
way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major 
General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late 
February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison 
system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and 
December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and 
wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of 
detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police 
Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 
372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s 
brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; 
pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a 
chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard 
to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against 
the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps 
a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate 
detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. 


There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba 
added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic 
evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were 
happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely 
sensitive nature.”

The photographs—several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” 
last week—show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to 
assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known 
as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; 
Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and 
Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include 
conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, 
assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was 
reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling 
from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals 
of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he 
masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands 
reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. 
In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning 
and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, 
knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another 
photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them 
stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of 
him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of 
hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet 
another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head 
momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is 
performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so 
in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is 
humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of 
Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of 
each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s 
all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. 
There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of 
another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of 
an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life 
that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing 
(the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant 
Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew 
Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers 
delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu 
Ghraib—seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most 
dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another 
section of the prison. Wisdom said:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not 
think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL 
Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick 
hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no 
danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that. 


When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its 
mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn’t think it was right 
. . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, “Look what these 
animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.” I heard PFC England shout 
out, “He’s getting hard.” 


Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed 
that “the issue was taken care of.” He said, “I just didn’t want to be part of 
anything that looked criminal.”



The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. 
Darby, an M.P. whose role emerged during the Article 32 hearing against Chip 
Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is a member of the 
Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according 
to an abridged transcript made available to me, “The investigation started 
after SPC Darby . . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of 
naked detainees.” Bobeck said that Darby had “initially put an anonymous 
letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a sworn statement. He 
felt very bad about it and thought it was very wrong.”

Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his 
colleagues had not been given any “training guidelines” that he was aware of. The 
M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon 
their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was 
ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was 
far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for 
six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck 
explained:

What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put 
in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how 
things were supposed to be run. 


Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one 
occasion, “had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went 
into cardiac arrest.”

At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, 
Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen 
witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick’s 
co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their 
Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the 
courtroom. “The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and 
discover facts,” Gary Myers told me. “We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no 
alleged victims to examine.” After the hearing, the presiding investigative 
officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against 
Frederick.

Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai 
prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client’s defense will be that 
he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the 
directions of military intelligence. He said, “Do you really think a group of kids 
from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way 
to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?”

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the 
military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and 
interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant 
force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving 
inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to 
the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military 
intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a 
prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running 
water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days. 


The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great 
job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. 
“CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate 
prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled 
aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander 
of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. 
“His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the 
Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the 
C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees—was brought to his unit for 
questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in 
a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the 
shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, 
placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered 
into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore 
never had a number.”



Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in 
his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two internal Army 
reports—Taguba’s and one by the Army’s chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal 
Donald Ryder, a major general.

Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq 
and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, 
concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, 
system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns 
about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to 
guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. 
Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. 
But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib. 

There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, 
that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to “set favorable 
conditions for subsequent interviews”—a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. 
“Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention 
facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile 
state.” General Karpinski’s brigade, Ryder reported, “has not been directed to 
change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor 
participate in those interrogations.” Ryder called for the establishment of 
procedures to “define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating 
the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.” 
The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.

Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not 
yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he 
found “no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement 
practices.” His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup. 

Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. 
“Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder’s] 
assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this 
investigation,” he wrote. “In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred 
during, or near to, the time of that assessment.” The report continued, “Contrary 
to the findings of MG Ryder’s report, I find that personnel assigned to the 
372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to 
‘set the conditions’ for MI interrogations.” Army intelligence officers, 
C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set 
physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”

Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to 
Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, 
testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded 
prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and 
penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and 
Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told 
C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being 
made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told 
that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had 
heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said 
he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’‘Make sure he has a bad night.’‘Make 
sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to 
Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been 
giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking 
down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good 
information.’”

When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, 
Sergeant Davis answered, “Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of 
the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also 
the wing”—where the abuse took place—“belongs to MI and it appeared MI 
personnel approved of the abuse.”

Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, 
said, “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, 
sheets, and clothes.” (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do 
this “they needed to give me paperwork.”) Taguba also cited an interview with 
Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian 
contractor. He told of one night when a “bunch of people from MI” watched as a group 
of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and 
Frederick.

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence 
officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the 
commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial 
punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the 
Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and 
reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI 
International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security 
clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering 
military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate 
interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in 
accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to 
physical abuse,” Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action 
against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the 
company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the 
matter.) 

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel 
“were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu 
Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action. 



The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from 
senior commanders. During Karpinski’s seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there 
were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involving escapes, 
attempted escapes, and other serious security issues that were investigated by 
officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or 
wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of “lessons learned” 
inquiries within the brigade. Karpinski invariably approved the reports and 
signed orders calling for changes in day-to-day procedures. But Taguba found 
that she did not follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried 
out. Had she done so, he added, “cases of abuse may have been prevented.”

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and 
that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of 
resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and 
accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, 
between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially 
recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were 
wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study 
noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were 
deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be 
released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers 
“routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, 
Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including 
some that he considered “without precedent in my military career.” The soldiers, 
he added, were “poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at 
the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission.”

General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he 
described as extremely emotional: “What I found particularly disturbing in her 
testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that 
many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated 
by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and 
enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.”

Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers 
and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal 
proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion 
and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.



After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major 
General Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraqi prison system, had arrived in 
Baghdad and was on the job. He had been the commander of the Guantánamo Bay 
detention center. General Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible 
wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators.

As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President 
Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the 
military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of 
collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. 
The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the 
Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day 
management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units 
and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting 
intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority. 

The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American 
intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a 
C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is 
invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no 
truth,” Rowell said. “‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want 
me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”

Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who 
pose an “imperative” security threat, but it must establish a regular 
procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be 
kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and 
have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after 
month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, 
another Guantánamo. 

As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had 
enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had 
nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for 
the United States’ reputation in the world. 

Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick’s military attorney, closed his defense at 
the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was “attempting to 
have these six soldiers atone for its sins.” Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s 
civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that 
culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every 
involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” 
he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of 
six soldiers? Not a chance.”