Get the g*d damn information moron. We have to produce better intelligence. So do it, or else.
Okay, okay, but what’s allowed and what isn’t?
Don’t worry, just do your f***n’ job.
But where do I draw the line?
C’mon, the President, the American people, your fellow soldiers are counting on you. Hey, it’s 9/11 time, don’t be a f**n p**y.
What if I break the law? You know, Geneva Conventions and all that…
The President has your back. You heard the the Secretary of Defense. What the hell more do you need, a note from your mommy?
But what about you, can I count on you, you being there for me?
We never leave anyone behind, you know that’s our motto.
Okay, but I can see somewhere down the line where I might need you to come through…
Hey, tradition is sacred. A leader who s***s on integrity won’t be tolerated.
Okay then, I’m clear, I’m with you.
Tortured Logic
By ANTHONY LAGOURANIS
Chicago
February 28, 2006
I HAVE never met Sgt. Santos Cardona or Sgt. Michael Smith, but we share similar experiences. In late 2003 and early 2004, both men used their dogs to intimidate Iraqi prisoners during interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison. They maintain that they were following legal orders. Now they both face impending court-martial.
From January 2004 to January 2005, I served in various places in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) as an Army interrogator. Following orders that I believed were legal, I used military working dogs during interrogations. I terrified my interrogation subjects, but I never got intelligence (mostly because 90 percent of them were probably innocent, but that’s another story). Perhaps, I have thought for a long time, I also deserve to be prosecuted. But if that is the case, culpability goes much farther up the chain of command than the Army and the Bush administration have so far been willing to admit.
When the chief warrant officer at our interrogation site in Mosul first told me to use dogs during interrogations, it seemed well within what was allowed by our written rules and consistent with what was being done at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers. The dogs were muzzled and held by a handler. The prisoners didn’t know that, though, because they were blindfolded; if they gave me an answer I didn’t like, I could cue the handler so the dog would bark and lunge toward them. Sometimes they were so terrified they’d wet their jumpsuits. About halfway through my tour, I stopped using dogs and other “enhancements” like hypothermia that qualify as torture even under the most nonchalant readings of international law. I couldn’t handle being so routinely brutal.
In training, we learned that all P.O.W.’s are protected against actual and implied threats. You can never put a “knife on the table” to get someone to talk. That was clear. But our Iraqi prisoners weren’t clearly classified as P.O.W.’s, so I never knew what laws applied. Instead, a confusing set of verbal and written orders had supplanted the Geneva Conventions.
When an Army investigator asked Col. Thomas Pappas, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, how intimidation with dogs could be allowed under this treaty, he gave the chilling reply, “I did not personally look at that with regard to the Geneva Convention.” Colonel Pappas later testified that he was taking his cue on the use of dogs from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who took over detainee operations in Iraq after running them in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
To read the entire article, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28lagouranis.html?ex=1298782800&en=4783b895701b8e75&am
p;ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
