[Peace-discuss] generals and orcs

[John W.]

Pardon my ignorance....But how is it that torture is basically OK now, 
according to the Bush regime, and yet these folks have been or are being 
court-martialed for what happened at Abu Ghraib?  Which is it?

John Wason



At 11:19 AM 1/13/2006, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

>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.”