Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-03-29 18:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The filthy Sanchez.
The ACLU today released a memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army’s own Field Manual. More specifically, it points out that Gen. Sanchez committed perjury when testifying before Congress.

From Sanchez' testimony of May 19, 2004:

U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison. Is that correct?

SANCHEZ: Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year.

That is absolutely refuted by the newly released memo, which says:

Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs ...
Sleep Management: Detainee provided minimum of 4 hours sleep per 24 hour period, not to exceed 72 continuous hours.
Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear... (Sanchez's wording, not mine.)

Sanchez is clearly guilty of perjury, and should face the wrath of Congress... and the Senate should determine the guilt of his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, while they're at it.

*UPDATE* This post is starting to get some attention on other sites, such as MetaFilter, Tom Tomorrow, Atrios, and DailyKos. This morning, I called the office of Senator Reed, at (202) 224-4642, to make them aware of this act of perjury, as well as calling my local senator. I encourage everyone who reads this to take a minute and do the same. We must get our politicians talking about the seriousness of Gen. Sanchez' actions. No senator likes being lied to. It makes them pissed off... and rightly so. Let's hope they'll do something about it.

Also, as a matter of clarification, the evidence hasn't been fully uncovered yet regarding Rumsfeld's possible involvement in this matter. That said, it is known that Rumsfeld had previously approved the interrogation methods for Guantanamo, which the methods in Sanchez' memo were based upon. Also, in August 2003, it was Rumsfeld who arranged for Major-General Geoffrey Miller to be sent to Iraq from Gunatanamo to, “review current Iraqi Theatre ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence”. Miller then proceeded to take control over the interrogations at Abu Ghraib away from Army General Janis Karpinski.

In other words, we know that at about the same time that Sanchez' new Gitmo'ized policies went into place, that Rumsfeld had sent in a 'Gitmo "fixer" to get info out of those prisoners.

Coincidence?!

(Post a new comment)


[info]dejiko
2005-03-30 05:13 am UTC (link)
That whole fiasco is just an utter disgrace. Having been in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib deal came out, I'm disgusted by the avoidance of responsibility on the parts of higher officials.

I've seen all ends of the spectrum in JAG, but Abu Ghraib was really one of the most heinous. One of the Defense attorneys that I knew out in Iraq was Charles Graner's defense attorney. Even he (the attorney) didn't like Graner much. Especially when Graner walked around Baghdad wearing a T-Shirt Hell shirt with a photo of himself from the prison (w/ detainees). Ugh.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]dejiko
2005-03-30 05:14 am UTC (link)
Note: I mean Baghdad as in Camp Victory, not out in the city itself. *laughing*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]insomnia
2005-03-30 07:13 am UTC (link)
It's a shame that Graner didn't take a nice long walk through the streets of Baghdad. It would've saved the cost of a trial and arguably would've been more just.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]dejiko
2005-03-30 02:05 pm UTC (link)
Right!! *lmao* That's what I said when the attorneys were talking about that. That would certainly have been a case of "Good bye and Good riddance!"

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]boredsoldier
2005-03-30 09:27 am UTC (link)
Pity

(Reply to this)

[info]kungfumegadevil
2005-03-30 02:47 pm UTC (link)
Have you got the link to the memo? Both links in your post lead to the prison abuse hearings.

(Reply to this)
What's the date of the memo?
(Anonymous)
2005-03-30 04:07 pm UTC (link)
I am curious because I see that he was very careful to say "at any time in the last year." That is a very lawyerly thing to say.

TJ
www.welcometogilead.blogspot.com

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: What's the date of the memo?
[info]insomnia
2005-03-30 04:24 pm UTC (link)
The memo is from Sept. '03, which falls within a year of when he testified before Congress.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]amboy00
2005-03-30 04:29 pm UTC (link)
Sweet. You just got atriosed!

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_03_27_atrios_archive.html#111219748264256220

Great journal post too. :-)

(Reply to this)
Information Clearing House
[info]kenric
2005-03-30 05:58 pm UTC (link)
Nice post man, you are also now linked through the Information Clearing House. Your article is the fourth link under the main links.

(Reply to this)
Great work -- I quoted you
[info]susanhu
2005-03-30 05:58 pm UTC (link)
at http://www.boomantribune.com
-- sign up and participate -- I like how you dig.

(Reply to this)

[info]frozenmanbits
2005-03-30 09:06 pm UTC (link)
nice.... i hope you don't mind but i added you to my friend's list....

(Reply to this)
maybe not perjury
[info]madmadius
2005-03-30 10:05 pm UTC (link)
I haven't read the whole testimony shebang yet, but that aside.

I think his statement "I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year" is ambiguous enough that it can be read as he did not invoke the General Safeguards paragraph 1 clause VII which requires his approval for any of the "interrogation techniques".

I am no lawyer but the ambiguity of his statement is broadly worded to the extent that the meaning can be two-fold. Unfortunately Senator Reed's question was on "order or approve" which considering the Memo's content means he directed a "technique" to be applied to a "detainee". Without proof that he ordered or approved another’s order to initiate a "technique", "General" Sanchez won't have to explain any further why he condoned torture.

I still think that the memo itself is a big deal and that the authors and supporters of it should be forced to explain their clear disregard for treaty obligations and conventions to which we hold the rest of the world accountable.

Questions:

How many “commanders” had direct access to the language of this memo?
How many “commanders” in the field knew of this memo’s contents?
How many officers informed by commanders of the content of this memo (verbally or in writing)?
How many officers informed their NCO’s about the memo?

My point is you start with something that is for 5 eyes only. 5 eyes talk with 2 tongues each about the main points. The 10 tongues talk about it with 5 ears. The 50 ears are now walking around with disturbing key point names stating what they can do with detainees. The evolution of a “protected working model” with checks, balances and legal protections is now an efficient working model that accomplishes the “stated goal” of freeing up the torturer to do his dirty work, but removes the eyes and tongues from any “direct responsibility”.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: maybe not perjury
(Anonymous)
2005-03-31 12:08 am UTC (link)
i agree. sanchez says the info may be correct, but that he never ordered, as in, he didn't give the green light for it's implementation. it's the legal wrangle. in principle he's guilty, in practice or in court, he didn't lie.

that said, we europeans are going to have a field day over this.

political bullshite as usual.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Great Work
(Anonymous)
2005-03-30 11:27 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the heads up on the perjury aspect for Newshog (http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/). I updated the post there.

Your readers may be interested in the related news about prisoner numbers in Iraq. The Army has admitted that it is holding about 10,500 prisoners in Iraq, more than double the number held in October. Around 100 of these prisoners are under 18 although the Army says it is now holding children seperately from adult prisoners. Recently, reports of sexual abuse, torture and holding minors without charges have surfaced.

Funnily enough, although Rumsfield has always refused to estimate the size of the Iraqi insurgency, the numbers detained, unless most are held on false or non-existant charges, tend to support the high end of Iraqi Defence Ministry estimates. The Iraqi goverment has estimated the insurgency as having up to 200,000 members, a figure Rummie has scorned as "totally inconsistent" with lower US estimates. In November of 2003 the Coalition military and the U.S. CIA put the total number of core fighters at 5,000, along with a network of 20,000 to 50,000 active supporters - which would mean at least 20% of the insurgency was now in prison. Given the strength and frequency of attacks, this seems unlikely unless the US occupations actions are themselves creating fresh insurgents as they go. Either way, it isn't good news.

Again - great work Mark. Congrats.
Regards, Cernig at Newshog

(Reply to this)
How many memos does the ACLU have to expose?
[info]flotron8
2005-03-31 03:29 pm UTC (link)
Before the American people demand justice?

Maybe we're so hypocritical, at this point, that when our soldiers get captured, kidnapped, tortured or beheaded -- or our citizens -- by insurgents, Iranians, or whoever, we're going to issue a grandiose human rights outcry.

That'll be a sick joke! The whole world will just say, "You got what you deserve!"

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: How many memos does the ACLU have to expose?
[info]madmadius
2005-03-31 07:56 pm UTC (link)
The memo's are another documented attrocity in the long line of American Foreign Policy Hypocrisy.

How many memos have come to light about Kissinger's involvement in South East Asia (E. Timor, Vietnam), or South America (SA)? Reagan's involvement with Death Sqaud's in SA. If the American people haven't figured out that our Foreign Policy considers human rights as a political tool to be used as "reason" for external action or a bargaining item in which you loose rights based on whether you adhere to a dictated policy (i.e. vote socialist and we'll give money to Right Wing death squads --- in essence reducing you rights of free speech and mobility and freedom from persecution). "It's all just history, things are different now."

The world already laugh's at our human rights outcries; it's like having a "PornStar's $#%%ing for Virginity Benefit".

I think George Carlin has summed up the American Right's vision of rights.

"These people call themselves right to lifers; they favor the death penalty , and they support death squads, and their against gun control, and their against nuclear weapons control. When they say right to life their talking about their right to decide which people should live or die."

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: How many memos does the ACLU have to expose?
[info]tangaroa
2005-03-31 08:19 pm UTC (link)
The ACLU can expose as many memos as it's capable of, but as long as the information doesn't make it out to the masses, the people aren't going to know enough to care about it. How many heard about the memo suggesting that Bush personally authorized a certain level of torture? Probably not many more will hear about this one. I don't think most Americans are even aware that torture has gone on outside Abu Ghrab, and many people -- including many of the Congressmen speaking for Gonzales's appointment -- seem unaware of the level of torture that took place there. The ACLU just doesn't have the political power to "make news" the way the Republican Party can. It doesn't help that there's been a decades-long smear campaign against the organization.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Very nice
(Anonymous)
2005-04-20 05:37 pm UTC (link)
I think this is true.

http://sumaher.blogspot.com (http://sumaher.blogspot.com)

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…