Posted on 05/15/2004 2:00:11 PM PDT by HAL9000
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a plan that brought unconventional interrogation methods to Iraq to gain intelligence about the growing insurgency, ultimately leading to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the New Yorker magazine reported on Saturday.Rumsfeld, who has been under fire for the prisoner abuse scandal, gave the green light to methods previously used in Afghanistan for gathering intelligence on members of al Qaeda, which the United States blames for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the magazine reported on its Web site.
Pentagon spokesman Jim Turner said he had not seen the story and could not comment. The article hits newsstands on Monday.
U.S. interrogation techniques have come under scrutiny amid revelations that prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad were kept naked, stacked on top of one another, forced to engage in sex acts and photographed in humiliating poses.
Rumsfeld, who has rejected calls by some Democrats and a number of major newspapers to resign, returned on Friday from a surprise trip to Iraq and Abu Ghraib prison, calling the scandal a "body blow." Seven soldiers have been charged.
The abuse prompted worldwide outrage and has shaken U.S. global prestige as President Bush seeks re-election in November. Bush has backed Rumsfeld and said the abuse was abhorrent but the wrongful actions of only a few soldiers.
The U.S. military has now prohibited several interrogation methods from being used in Iraq, including sleep and sensory deprivation and body "stress positions," defense officials said on Friday.
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM
The New Yorker said the interrogation plan was a highly classified "special access program," or SAP, that gave advance approval to kill, capture or interrogate so-called high-value targets in the battle against terror.
Such secret methods were used extensively in Afghanistan but more sparingly in Iraq -- only in the search for former President Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. As the Iraqi insurgency grew and more U.S. soldiers died, Rumsfeld and Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone expanded the scope to bring the interrogation tactics to Abu Ghraib, the article said.
The magazine, which based its article on interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, reported the plan was approved and carried out last year after deadly bombings in August at the U.N. headquarters and Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad.
A former intelligence official quoted in the article said Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved the program but may not have known about the abuse.
'DO WHAT YOU WANT'
The rules governing the secret operation were "grab whom you must. Do what you want," the unidentified former intelligence official told the New Yorker.
Rumsfeld left the details of the interrogations to Cambone, the article quoted a Pentagon consultant as saying.
"This is Cambone's deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program," said the Pentagon consultant in the article.
U.S. officials have admitted the abuse may have violated the Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of prisoners of war.
The New Yorker said the CIA, which approved using high-pressure interrogation tactics against senior al Qaeda leaders after the 2001 attacks, balked at extending them to Iraq and refused to participate
After initiating the secret techniques, the U.S. military began learning useful intelligence about the insurgency, the former intelligence official was quoted as saying.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved
This won't stick to him. He may have approved something but it won't be something that says "stick glowsticks up their kiesters".
Frankly I don't care if he did say to stick glowsticks up their kiesters, stack-em nekkid etc. If they have info we need then get it.
This aint a tea party we are hosting over there.
Love these Times sources.
We are at WAR! Did people know that after the Miranda Warning was instituted by the Earl Warren Supreme Court, the murder rate which had dropped in half between the '30's and 1960, doubled. Bad people must be dealt with badly; and in war that's our source of impending attacks. How many more soldiers are going to be killed because we have to be 'nice' to our captives? Okay, we've gotten rid of the immoral soldiers who sneaked around between 2 and 4AM for their humiliating of soldiers. Saddam's videos show not sex, and growling dogs, but cutting off parts of bodies and dog's eating prisoners. Why doesn't the media show that?
I want 'W' to say, 'That's that, now we're back to war!'
We must defeat terrorism and one doesn't do that by collywaddling the enemy soldiers. This whole business just makes the enemy think we're weak, and will strike back with more force than ever. They hate America, and the media
supports them. Go Bush 2004!
This country cracks me up. What a bunch of schizophrenic whiners.
Ban the cameras-problem solved.
Mrs. Wilson?
So why didn't Reuters give Seymour credit?
This is all about recreating the Vietnam scenario and taking down the Bush Administration.
bttt
This is another ripe opportunity for the dems to overreach and overplay their hand.
Source: New Yorker story full of inaccuracies.
Any kind of war is hell. War against dishonorable terrorists is the worst kind of war. It is not a police action. It is not a routine traffic stop.
In order to win the war on terrorism in Iraq, the nation of Iraq must be brought to its knees--their will to resist broken. The society as a whole must be brought to its knees. They have to totally and completely surrender both from a combatants point of view as well as from a citizens point of view. To its knees. Period.
Anything short of this is failure.
The million dollar question is how to achieve this honorably against a dishonorable foe. An enemy (nation or combatant) that has no honor cannot appreciate being treated honorably. Therefore, it may be the case that bringing this type of enemy to its knees through honorable means will result in the enemy thinking they have merely convieniently appeared to surrender.
So before we rush to judgement, perhaps we should step in the shoes of the commanders and their soldiers on the ground. It is so easy to be a "monday morning armchair quarterback" and imagine what the correct action should have been.
I say the onus should be on the terrorists themselves and the society that encourages and allows them to operate. If these terrorists want to be treated as war prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, then they should conduct their resistance according to the rules of war. They aren't. They are breaking every rule of honorable combat. They will use whatever dishonorable means to gain an advantage.
Since it is the responsibility of the commanders and soldiers to conduct the war to achieve the desired end, then we may have to accept the fact that the means may require action that wouldnt be acceptable under honorable conditions.
War is hell.
I don't believe the abuse at Abu Ghraib had anything to do with interrogation techniques.
The abuse was committed by a handful of degenerates having parties. They had access to these prisoners and used them for their sick idea of fun.
Consider the source,alway consder they have to give their readers what they want.We know the truth is dead for now.
They're not degenerates. The "abuse" scandal is nothing more than a liberal media-led hysterical parade.
If they got abused, good.
So do I.
Quoting other reporters as "Report Says" - bleah. Wishful thinking reported as fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.