Military Disservice

C.I.A. Hid More Prisoners Than It Has Disclosed, Generals Say
By ERIC SCHMITT
and DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: September 9, 2004


ASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — The Central Intelligence Agency kept dozens of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities in Iraq off official rosters to hide them from Red Cross inspections, far more than has been previously reported, two senior Army generals said today.

Advertisement


An inquiry by three generals issued last month found eight documented cases of so-called "ghost detainees," but two of the officers said in congressional testimony and interviews later that depositions with military personnel at the prison suggested the number was far higher.

"The number is in the dozens , and perhaps up to 100," Gen. Paul J. Kern, the senior officer who oversaw the inquiry into the role of military intelligence personnel in the prisoner-abuse scandal, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He added that a precise number would never be known because there were no records kept on most of the C.I.A. detainees.

Another senior Army investigator, Gen. George R. Fay, described for the first time in detail how C.I.A. officials in Baghdad and at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., three times refused his request for information, finally explaining they were doing their own investigation into the matter.

Military officials have said the C.I.A.'s practice of using the military's prisons in Iraq to hide prisoners they are interrogating violated military regulations and international law. The inspectors general of the Defense Department and C.I.A. are now investigating the matter.

The new disclosures on the "ghost detainees" highlighted a day that two congressional committees dedicated to the Abu Ghraib matter. Lawmakers scrutinizing the Army report and the findings of an independent panel into prisoner abuse also questioned whether either inquiry sufficiently held top civilians and generals accountable for the scandal.

Two former defense secretaries said that failures on the part of top deputies to Donald H. Rumsfeld to properly oversee the development of interrogation policies for Iraq had contributed to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The former secretaries, Mr. Schlesinger and Harold Brown, both offered praise for Mr. Rumsfeld himself, saying that he had conducted himself responsibly and strongly reiterating past statements that he should not resign over the affair.

But both former secretaries were more specific than in the past in criticizing some of Mr. Rumsfeld's deputies, identifying two undersecretaries of defense and the Pentagon's general counsel as having fallen short in their conduct.

Mr. Brown, who served under President Jimmy Carter, also pointed a finger of blame beyond Mr. Rumsfeld to the "very top" of the Bush administration for what he called "the responsibility for failing to plan for what actually happened after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

I think we seriously need to review how our military personel operate. This is not at all acceptable. Neither was the abuse. Neither is our detention of people in cuba. Constitutional law should apply to all prisoners, as well as to people in the miltary. The people in the miltary right now can also be mistreated by being court marshalled. Court Marshalling is unconstitutional, as it denies the rights granted to all citizens, civilian and military, to a fair trial.
3,119 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top
I think we seriously need to review how our military personel operate. This is not at all acceptable. Neither was the abuse. Neither is our detention of people in cuba. Constitutional law should apply to all prisoners, as well as to people in the miltary


The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to the Military, there are different laws for the military personnel but basically they are the same as a citizen, except stricter.
Reply #2 Top
Court Marshalling is unconstitutional


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that if you can't spell Court Martial, you probably have no clue what one really is or whether it is Constitutional or not.

I think we seriously need to review how our military personel operate.


This report states that the military was the source of the information about the 'ghost detainees' that were held by the CIA, not the military. It even states that a general reported that the CIA's use of the military's prisons was against military regulations and international law. The military is not where primary fault lies here, it is with the CIA, although the argument can be made that the Army should not have allowed the CIA to operate this was. The military and the CIA are two different entities that sometimes work together. So don't go trying to pin this one all on the military by posting an article that doesn't even state that. If you want to complain about the abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib, that's fine. Those dirtbags will receive courts martial (yeah, that's where the 's' goes). But they are NOT indicative of the average Soldier operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, or anywhere else.

Constitutional law should apply to all prisoners, as well as to people in the miltary.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to the Military, there are different laws for the military personnel but basically they are the same as a citizen, except stricter.


Constitutional law applies to citizens (and legal resident aliens?). The UCMJ, as mentioned above, is Constitutional and parallels civilian laws and punishments. Not necessarily stricter, but there are different, military specific laws included in the UCMJ that are not found in civilian laws. They are fair trials and the defendent has rights.
Reply #3 Top
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that if you can't spell Court Martial, you probably have no clue what one really is or whether it is Constitutional or not.


Constitutional law applies to citizens (and legal resident aliens?).


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that if you don't know who constitutional law applies to then you shouldn't be attacking my spelling on my own post. Like you have never made a mistake in your life.

You people seem to have missed the point of my post. I only included court martials because I didn't want to be attacked for not supporting americans or american troops or some other insane thing that some people resort to when they don't have a real brain.
Reply #4 Top
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that if you don't know who constitutional law applies to then you shouldn't be attacking my spelling on my own post. Like you have never made a mistake in your life.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I do know that Constitutional law does not apply to foreign nationals captured during war. I will agree that there are some issues when it comes to the people held in Cuba, but those aren't Constitutional issues. Those are likely to be international law issues. I attacked your spelling because it was an easy way to get to my point. No tact there, I'll admit, but you are wrong about Courts Martial (should I point out your misplacement of the 's' in your reply?). I freely admitted my lack of knowledge. I never said something like 'Constitutional law applies to US Citizens and no one else' or 'Court Marshalling is unconstitutional'.

My point was that you obviously don't know what a Court Martial is if you think it's not Constitutional.

You people seem to have missed the point of my post.


I don't think I missed the point of your post, though. It seems that you are trying to pin the blame on the ghost detainees on the military, when that's not even what the article you cut and pasted was about. Or, at least, calling for a review of military operations based on this article when it has little to do with what the military is doing. It that's not what the last paragraph said, well, I must be mis-reading you.

And as for 'you people'... Well, I am one of those volunteers service members. And I don't like it when people weigh in on military matters when they don't know what they are talking about. Now, I'm not going to call you a person without a real brain, but I am going to say that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to miltary justice. I never attacked you for not supporting troops, I accused you of making a statement that was not true.

Again, I'll admit a lack of tact, but that last paragraph made me feel that you were using this article (which was about CIA actions, not military actions) as a means to attack the military (not troops individually, but the military in general). That's how I felt reading it.
Reply #5 Top
Once again the point is the CIA has been naughty and they even influenced the Military soldiers, but yet once again are getting away with their actions, well like Director Like Agent.
Reply #6 Top
Once again the point is the CIA has been naughty and they even influenced the Military soldiers, but yet once again are getting away with their actions, well like Director Like Agent.


I hope that the truth comes to light and the CIA is held accountable for its actions. Soldiers are being held accountable for Abu Ghraib. It may not get as high as necessary, but I hope that won't be the case. I do hope that the truth comes to light and all levels of leadership are held responsible to the degree they deserve for their failures.
Reply #7 Top
I'm with chiprj, but my version is shorter if less mature......ttttthhhhppppppttttttt!!!!!!
(this rasberry brought to you by an american soldier, no....worse, an MI soldier (gasp!!!!))
Reply #8 Top
We get your meaning but you really should do some research before attempting to sling the tar and feathers.
Your title alone is inaccurate and inflammatory. If accused, I would rather take my chances at a Courts martial than in
a local courtroom any day of the week.
As I have testified at more than one I have a basis for my statement.
Reply #9 Top
Well said, Geez. When I regenerate another "Insightful" I'll try and remember to come back.
Honestly, well said to Chip and Special over there, too. Just not as reserved or eloquent (one adjective each, gentlemen).

Sandy - Yes, it's terrible that things are happening to prisoners that shouldn't. I think you feel that was the entirety of this article. Please keep in mind that the SSG above is correct, and that your title seems to be pinning this on the military... and that you pointing out that you put the underlined-and-bold clause at the end of your comments to avoid "attack" by military members is akin to admitting you knew you were asking for trouble.