[Peace-discuss] generals and orcs

[Ricky Baldwin]

Hey folks,

I just received the following in this exact form from
a friend in Buffalo.  Thought the news was
interesting, even without the Tolkien reference.

-Ricky

Q: What’s the difference between Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D.
Miller, mastermind of torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib,
and an Orc?

A: Orcs never plead the Fifth.

General Asserts Right On Self-Incrimination In Iraq
Abuse Cases

By Josh White

Washington Post Staff Writer 
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102502.html

http://www.halloween-mask.com/orc_foldberg.htm

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, a central figure in the
U.S. detainee-abuse scandal, this week invoked his
right not to incriminate himself in court-martial
proceedings against two soldiers accused of using dogs
to intimidate captives at the Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq, according to lawyers involved in the case.

The move by Miller — who once supervised the U.S.
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and helped
set up operations at Abu Ghraib — is the first time
the general has given an indication that he might have
information that could implicate him in wrongdoing,
according to military lawyers.

Harvey Volzer, an attorney for one of the dog
handlers, has been seeking to question Miller to
determine whether Miller ordered the use of military
working dogs to frighten detainees during
interrogations at Abu Ghraib. Volzer has argued that
the dog handlers were following orders when the
animals were used against detainees.

Maj. Michelle E. Crawford, a defense lawyer
representing Miller, said the general decided not to
answer further questions because he has “been
interviewed repeatedly over the last several years”
about his role at Guantanamo Bay and his visit to Iraq
and he stands by his many statements to Congress, Army
investigators and lawyers.

Miller’s “choice to no longer answer the same
questions . . . was based on the advice of counsel and
includes the fact that he has already, and repeatedly,
answered all inquiries fully,” Crawford said.

Miller’s decision came shortly after Col. Thomas M.
Pappas, the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, accepted
immunity from prosecution this week and was ordered to
testify at upcoming courts-martial. Pappas, a military
intelligence officer, could be asked to detail
high-level policies relating to the treatment of
detainees at Abu Ghraib.

He also could shed light on how abusive tactics
emerged, who ordered their use and their possible
connection to officials in Washington, according to
lawyers and human rights advocates who have closely
followed the case. Pappas has never spoken publicly.
Crawford said Miller was unaware of Pappas’s grant of
immunity. “This could be a big break if Pappas
testifies as to why those dogs were used and who
ordered the dogs to be used,” said Michael Ratner,
president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
“It’s a steppingstone going up the chain of command,
and that’s positive. It might demonstrate that it
wasn’t just a few rotten apples.”

Pappas’s attorney, Maj. Jeffery D. Lippert, said
yesterday that Pappas would not comment. But he added
in an e-mail that “the Commanding General of the
Military District of Washington has ordered Col.
Pappas to testify if called as a witness in pending
courts-martial, and granted him testimonial immunity
to facilitate his appearance as a witness.”

Miller invoked his military Article 31 rights through
his Army lawyer on Tuesday, after a Navy judge in the
Military District of Washington ruled that lawyers
defending the two dog handlers could interview Miller
this week. Article 31 rights are almost identical to
those afforded civilians by the Fifth Amendment, and
invoking them does not legally imply guilt. Miller now
will not meet with the defense lawyers.

Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington expert in military law,
said that Miller’s decision is “consistent with his
being concerned that he may have some exposure to
worry about.” Fidell added: “It’s very unusual for
senior officers to invoke their Article 31 rights. The
culture in the military tends to encourage cooperation
rather than the opposite.”

Miller has long been in the spotlight of the Abu
Ghraib abuse investigations, largely because he was
sent to the Iraq prison in August and September 2003
with the goal of streamlining its
intelligence-gathering operations, using Guantanamo
Bay, commonly called “Gitmo,” as a model. Officers at
Abu Ghraib have said that Miller wanted to “Gitmo-ize”
the facility, and that harsh tactics migrated from the
Cuba facility via “Tiger Teams” that Miller sent to
Iraq as trainers.

Photographs documenting a wide array of abuse against
dozens of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 were
turned over to military investigators in January 2004.
The photographs were revealed publicly in April 2004,
and seven low-ranking military police soldiers have
taken most of the blame for the treatment of captives,
which included sexual humiliation, stress positions
and beatings. All seven were convicted on various
charges, the most serious of which led to a 10-year
prison sentence for Pvt. Charles A. Graner.

In an interview with defense attorneys for those MPs
in August 2004, Miller said he never told Pappas to
use dogs in questioning detainees. Photos of the dog
handlers scaring detainees at Abu Ghraib were among
the most notorious to emerge from the prison. Dogs
were also used at Guantanamo Bay.

“At no time did we discuss the use of dogs in
interrogations,” Miller said, according to a
transcript.

Volzer, who represents Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, one of
the military dog handlers charged with abuse, said he
believes the grant of immunity to Pappas will
essentially clear his client, because Pappas already
has admitted in administrative hearings that he
improperly ordered the use of dogs. Volzer said he
believes that Pappas was taking direction from Miller,
and that Miller was acting on instructions from
Defense Department officials. Cardona and Sgt. Michael
J. Smith are scheduled to be tried in separate
courts-martial in February and March.

“I think the command is hiding something, and I think
what they’re hiding is material that is exculpatory
that says the interrogation techniques were approved
by powers above General Miller,” Volzer said. “Having
Pappas available to testify may have given Miller the
impression that he is next to be accused of doing
something inappropriate or giving inappropriate
orders.”

Miller, now based at the Pentagon as a senior official
managing Army installations, was recommended for
administrative punishment for his alleged mishandling
of interrogations of a valuable detainee in Guantanamo
Bay. But high-ranking military officials have declined
to impose the penalty. The detainee was subjected to a
number of abuses that mirrored the ones that later
emerged in the Abu Ghraib photographs.

Maj. Christopher Graveline, who has prosecuted several
of the Abu Ghraib abuse cases, said yesterday that
Pappas might be called to testify in upcoming
courts-martial, but declined to comment on “any
current or future prosecutions.”

Asked whether prosecutors are looking at additional
charges arising out of the Abu Ghraib investigation,
Graveline said: “We’re taking it where the evidence
leads it.”

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com