Rumsfeld Issues orders to literally Hide detainees from Red Cross

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
It was a banner day for the Bush Administration.

It turns out Rummy's been hiding prisoners as "ghost detainees" so that those pesky folks at the Red Cross could make sure they weren't being mistreated.

USA! USA! USA!

To be fair, Tenet had a hand in it too, but he's gone now.

-------
June 17, 2004
PRISON ABUSE
Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

ASHINGTON, June 16 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, acting at the request of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, ordered military officials in Iraq last November to hold a man suspected of being a senior Iraqi terrorist at a high-level detention center there but not list him on the prison's rolls, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials said Wednesday.

This prisoner and other "ghost detainees" were hidden largely to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their treatment, and to avoid disclosing their location to an enemy, officials said.

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, the Army officer who in February investigated abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, criticized the practice of allowing ghost detainees there and at other detention centers as "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."

This prisoner, who has not been named, is believed to be the first to have been kept off the books at the orders of Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Tenet. He was not held at Abu Ghraib, but at another prison, Camp Cropper, on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport, officials said.

Pentagon and intelligence officials said the decision to hold the detainee without registering him - at least initially - was in keeping with the administration's legal opinion about the status of those viewed as an active threat in wartime.

Seven months later, however, the detainee - a reputed senior officer of Ansar al-Islam, a group the United States has linked to Al Qaeda and blames for some attacks in Iraq - is still languishing at the prison but has only been questioned once while in detention, in what government officials acknowledged was an extraordinary lapse.

"Once he was placed in military custody, people lost track of him," a senior intelligence official conceded Wednesday night. "The normal review processes that would keep track of him didn't."

The detainee was described by the official as someone "who was actively planning operations specifically targeting U.S. forces and interests both inside and outside of Iraq."

But once he was placed into custody at Camp Cropper, where about 100 detainees deemed to have the highest intelligence value are held, he received only one cursory arrival interrogation from military officers and was never again questioned by any other military or intelligence officers, according to Pentagon and intelligence officials.

The Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Wednesday that officials at Camp Cropper questioned their superiors several times in recent months about what to do with the suspect.

But only in the last two weeks has Mr. Rumsfeld's top aide for intelligence policy, Stephen A. Cambone, called C.I.A. senior officials to request that the agency deal with the suspect or else have him go into the prison's regular reporting system.

Mr. Di Rita referred questions about the prisoner's fate to the C.I.A.

A senior intelligence official said late Wednesday that "the matter is currently under discussion."

In July 2003, the man suspected of being an Ansar al-Islam official was captured in Iraq and turned over to C.I.A. officials, who took him to an undisclosed location outside of Iraq for interrogation. By that fall, however, a C.I.A. legal analysis determined that because the detainee was deemed to be an Iraqi unlawful combatant - outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions - he should be transferred back to Iraq.

Mr. Tenet made his request to Mr. Rumsfeld - that the suspect be held but not listed - in October. The request was passed down the chain of command: to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, and finally to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the ground commander in Iraq. At each stage, lawyers reviewed the request and their bosses approved it.

A senior intelligence official said late Wednesday that the C.I.A. inquired about the detainee's status in January, but was told that American jailers in Iraq could not find him, perhaps as a result of the chaos and confusion of the November and December spike in insurgent violence.

The detention was first reported in this week's U.S. News & World Report. But the role played by senior officials in deciding the detainee's status was not known publicly before Wednesday. Pentagon and intelligence officials gave new details on Wednesday about the prisoner and the circumstances that brought him to Camp Cropper, including the fact that his status was decided by Mr. Tenet and Mr. Rumsfeld, and approved by senior officers.

While acknowledging mistakes in the prisoner's detention, the senior intelligence official said the detainee posed a significant threat to American forces in Iraq and elsewhere. "He also possessed significant information about Ansar al Islam's leadership structure, training and locations," the official said.

At Camp Cropper, some prisoners had been held since June 2003 for nearly 23 hours a day in solitary confinement in small cells without sunlight, according to a report by the international Red Cross.

The suspected Ansar official was segregated from the other detainees and was not listed on the rolls. Under the order that had filtered down to General Sanchez, military police were not to disclose the detainee's whereabouts to the Red Cross pending further directives.

The prisoner fell into legal limbo as the military police pressed their superiors for guidance, which has still not formally come.

"Over the course of the next several weeks, the custodians at the prison asked for additional guidance, but there were no interrogations," Mr. Di Rita said.

Before this case surfaced, the C.I.A. has said it had discontinued the ghost detainee practice, but said that the Geneva Conventions allowed a delay in the identification of prisoners to avoid disclosing their whereabouts to an enemy.

In Washington, the Army announced that Gen. Paul J. Kern, the head of the Army Matériel Command, would oversee an Army inquiry into the role military intelligence soldiers played in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. General Kern replaces General Sanchez as the senior officer reviewing the findings. General Sanchez removed himself from that role so he could be interviewed by investigators.
 

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
Wow, all this and F911 comes out next Friday. Continued vindication for those of us who saw through this entire bullshit saga for what it really was...

A vengeful, misguided, illegal, and thoroughly immoral adventure that has tarnished our international standing so badly, who knows if we can ever claim to be the world's moral beacon again. And to think how all this was accomplished after having such a sympathetic outpouring immediately following Sept. 11th.
Only the most incompetent, blind, and thoroughly corrupt administration to ever occupy the White House could have pulled off such a feat.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
This guy's the leader of a known terrorist organization - you give up certain rights when you take that road. You'll have to forgive me if I don't cry a river this piece of human filth.
 

Chicago Cheeseburgler Crew

BANNED , Banned , Here's why
10 Year Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2002
Posts
24,280
galfordo said:
This guy's the leader of a known terrorist organization - you give up certain rights when you take that road. You'll have to forgive me if I don't cry a river this piece of human filth.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Stinky-Dinkins said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the gander is also the leader of a terrorist organization, then yes, I agree.
 

Chicago Cheeseburgler Crew

BANNED , Banned , Here's why
10 Year Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2002
Posts
24,280
The more wrongful deeds we do unto them gives way to a greater likelihood that they will commit a retaliatory amount of wrongful deeds unto us.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Stinky-Dinkins said:
The more wrongful deeds we do unto them gives way to a greater likelihood that they will commit a retaliatory amount of wrongful deeds unto us.

Maybe they should maybe stop and think about who they're fighting for ....
 

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
galfordo said:
This guy's the leader of a known terrorist organization - you give up certain rights when you take that road. You'll have to forgive me if I don't cry a river this piece of human filth.

Suspected SUSPECTED. What is this now, Guilty until proven innocent the Bush way. :annoyed: Like the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been there 2 years, lost contact with their families, haven't had a trial. Yeah.... great administration.

You are truly a dumb ignorant fuckwit who I would like to see get hit by a car. Perhaps a coma would raise your IQ.

Holy shit, America has become this stupid.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
SamuraiShodownSensei said:
Suspected SUSPECTED. What is this now, Guilty until proven innocent the Bush way. :annoyed: Like the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been there 2 years, lost contact with their families, haven't had a trial. Yeah.... great administration.

You are truly a dumb ignorant fuckwit who I would like to see get hit by a car. Perhaps a coma would raise your IQ.

Holy shit, America has become this stupid.

Grow up, and realize that everyone that disagrees with you isn't crazy. You might want to approach a neuroscientist about your raising IQ by coma theory, that's a clever idea ;).

The real issue here is that no one seems to have much of a concept of what war is like. People aren't guaranteed a speedy trial and immediate access to an attorney when we're at war - we just don't have the resources. This isn't some all new concept that just emerged during this conflict - it's simply the reality of war.
 

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
galfordo said:
Grow up, and realize that everyone that disagrees with you isn't crazy. You might want to approach a neuroscientist about your raising IQ by coma theory, that's a clever idea ;).

The real issue here is that no one seems to have much of a concept of what war is like. People aren't guaranteed a speedy trial and immediate access to an attorney when we're at war - we just don't have the resources. This isn't some all new concept that just emerged during this conflict - it's simply the reality of war.


I don't see a war, I see a mass murder of our troops in an exercise of stupidity.
 

Crovax

Rasputin's Rose Gardener
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
701
galfordo said:
The real issue here is that no one seems to have much of a concept of what war is like. People aren't guaranteed a speedy trial and immediate access to an attorney when we're at war - we just don't have the resources. This isn't some all new concept that just emerged during this conflict - it's simply the reality of war.

No it isn't. The issue here is a flagrant violation of (yet another) international treaty by this administration. Keeping prisoners off the books serves no purpose other than to keep them out of sight of the international red cross/red crescent--and therefore enable literally anything to be done to them, even depriving them of the most basic of human rights.

No, it is not an issue of fucked up things happening during wartime. This is something that's not happening on a battlefield, its happening to people who are for all intents and purposes completely contained. On the battlefield I could understand, but there is no excuse for breaking the rules in such a scenario.

In light of this article, I completely agree with Tenet's "resignation", and think even more that Rumsfeld should be next. Even more than that, it should be very clear that we have never occupied the moral high ground in this conflict.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Crovax said:
No it isn't. The issue here is a flagrant violation of (yet another) international treaty by this administration. Keeping prisoners off the books serves no purpose other than to keep them out of sight of the international red cross/red crescent--and therefore enable literally anything to be done to them, even depriving them of the most basic of human rights.

Doesn't keeping him off the books also keep the enemy from knowing his position?

And again, I really have little interest in the human rights of terrorists - call me cruel, stupid, or whatever if you'd like; that's just how I feel. You wanna recruit teenage boys to become suicide bombers? Well, that's fine, but you forfeit some of your "basic human rights".
 

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
Galfordo in a nutshell:

" I could care less about how American troops deal with people from other countries, what ever we do is ok. But if another country does something bad to our troops that makes them horrible"
 

Crovax

Rasputin's Rose Gardener
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
701
galfordo said:
Doesn't keeping him off the books also keep the enemy from knowing his position?

Wow, this has to be the most ridiculous "logic" I've read from you. How many prisoners that are on the books have the enemy actually tried to use force to release? None. Furthermore, I know that you also seem to cling to the idea that most of the insurrgents in Iraq are Saddam loyalists. If you truly believe keeping prisoners off the books is to "keep the enemy from knowing his position," then why it is that Saddam, who is definitely on the books, hasn't been the object of any operations to free him?

Horrible reasoning, simply horrible, Galfordo.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Crovax said:
Wow, this has to be the most ridiculous "logic" I've read from you. How many prisoners that are on the books have the enemy actually tried to use force to release? None. Furthermore, I know that you also seem to cling to the idea that most of the insurrgents in Iraq are Saddam loyalists. If you truly believe keeping prisoners off the books is to "keep the enemy from knowing his position," then why it is that Saddam, who is definitely on the books, hasn't been the object of any operations to free him?

Saddam's position is unknown, and he is of course under heavy security. Try considering that fact that we can't devote enormous resources to every hgih profile guy that gets caught.

Some of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists, and others are members of Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups who have a vested interest in NOT seeing a democracy take form in Iraq.

Horrible reasoning, simply horrible, Galfordo.

Get a grip on your ego, mr. omniscience. You don't a have a corner on the market for logic, particularly on something as contraversial and subjective as the topic at hand. Anyone who claims to know the truth about the details of world affairs has some serious delusions.
 

Crovax

Rasputin's Rose Gardener
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
701
galfordo said:
Saddam's position is unknown, and he is of course under heavy security. Try considering that fact that we can't devote enormous resources to every hgih profile guy that gets caught.

You just proved my point. Your statement implied that having the red cross know where all prisoners are located would somehow lead to enemies also knowing their locations. You act as if having the red cross know, equates to the existence of some large public domain listing of the locations of all prisoners. Giving the red cross access to all prisoners does not equal the enemy knowing the positions of all prisoners. Surely you must understand that difference.

Get a grip on your ego, mr. omniscience. You don't a have a corner on the market for logic, particularly on something as contraversial and subjective as the topic at hand. Anyone who claims to know the truth about the details of world affairs has some serious delusions.

I never said I knew everything, especially about issues pertaining to Iraq, but if I see bullshit, I'm going to call you on it. You made the statement:

Doesn't keeping him off the books also keep the enemy from knowing his position?

I mean, I really can't see how you can equate giving the red cross prisoner information with giving enemies the same information. Your "logic" is faulty, plain and simple. The implication that the red cross is somehow connected to international terrorism is looking as bad as any of the various "conspiracy theories" you fault people for.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Crovax said:
You just proved my point. Your statement implied that having the red cross know where all prisoners are located would somehow lead to enemies also knowing their locations. You act as if having the red cross know, equates to the existence of some large public domain listing of the locations of all prisoners. Giving the red cross access to all prisoners does not equal the enemy knowing the positions of all prisoners. Surely you must understand that difference.

I don't think that the red cross would purposely divulge such information, but I do think that them knowing about it increases the probability that this information could fall into enemy hands. If the enemy knew that the red cross had full listings of their captured soldiers, which is surely common knowledge by now, they'd probably take an interest in such things, don't you think? And if they did, I sort of doubt that the red cross would be in much of a position to defend such information. That's just my theory. The more people you tell, the better the chances are that someone you don't want to hear will.

I never said I knew everything, especially about issues pertaining to Iraq, but if I see bullshit, I'm going to call you on it.

You essentially said that I'm being ridiculous, my logic is ridiculous and whatever else - because failed to see things your way. Smarter people than you and me engage in political analysis as a profession - and are constantly at odds with each other about what is the "correct" conclusion about a given political choice. This is why I find it odd when people can make absolute statements about the correctness of a choice like this - one that is riddled with subjectivity and personal opinion.

P.S. Rarely, if ever, are things ever "proven" on the political forums.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
Dear lord, this administration's corruption runs so deep it'll take forever to clear up our international reputation. Contrary to neocon propoganda, we are hated a lot more now than under previous administrations, and all for oil.
 

Crovax

Rasputin's Rose Gardener
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
701
galfordo said:
I don't think that the red cross would purposely divulge such information, but I do think that them knowing about it increases the probability that this information could fall into enemy hands. If the enemy knew that the red cross had full listings of their captured soldiers, which is surely common knowledge by now, they'd probably take an interest in such things, don't you think? And if they did, I sort of doubt that the red cross would be in much of a position to defend such information. That's just my theory. The more people you tell, the better the chances are that someone you don't want to hear will.

Indeed there is that possibility, but the red cross has been serving in this capacity for 150 years, and it is understood that all information is kept confidential. furthermore, as far as I know, there have been no mishaps in far greater conflicts in the past, so I find it laughable that the US would hide prisoners from this organization for the purpose of keeping the information out of enemy hands. there's simply no precedent for undertaking such an action with the motives you've espoused.

You essentially said that I'm being ridiculous, my logic is ridiculous and whatever else - because failed to see things your way. Smarter people than you and me engage in political analysis as a profession - and are constantly at odds with each other about what is the "correct" conclusion about a given political choice. This is why I find it odd when people can make absolute statements about the correctness of a choice like this - one that is riddled with subjectivity and personal opinion.

You've been guilty of doing the same thing in past threads, so don't even try to play this card.

P.S. Rarely, if ever, are things ever "proven" on the political forums.

Now this is something I can agree with you on. :D
 

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
The real issue here is that no one seems to have much of a concept of what war is like. People aren't guaranteed a speedy trial and immediate access to an attorney when we're at war - we just don't have the resources. This isn't some all new concept that just emerged during this conflict - it's simply the reality of war.

Dude, you're such a jackass. Get a fucking grip man.

If this is true, can you explain to me how the hell it is we're the good guys?
This is why cops have to put up with things like search warrants and do things BY THE BOOK. You do things the right way because YOU CLAIM THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. The moment you decide you can be just like whoever it is you're fighting, that's the moment you have ceased to be able to claim to be doing the right thing. America's doctrine was always that of retaliation against hostile acts to us or our allies...the moment we began this awful 'pre-emptive' shit, is the time when we ceased to be the light of the world in many of our allies' eyes.

The question is this...do you promote democracy with the barrel of a gun, or do you do it by acting with clear moral authority and knowing that your way of life will eventually be more seductive to those who are oppressed and will fight to get it THEMSELVES. Eastern Europe embraced democracy, not by invading US forces crushing Communist dictatorships, but by those people knowing they were getting a raw deal, being fed up and fighting for it on their own.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Crovax said:
Indeed there is that possibility, but the red cross has been serving in this capacity for 150 years, and it is understood that all information is kept confidential. furthermore, as far as I know, there have been no mishaps in far greater conflicts in the past, so I find it laughable that the US would hide prisoners from this organization for the purpose of keeping the information out of enemy hands. there's simply no precedent for undertaking such an action with the motives you've espoused.

The key words there are "as far as I know". This conflict also presents some problems that we really haven't been fully exposed to - except possibly in Vietnam. One of these problems is a total disregard for the lives of civilian and non-combatants - which is why I don't find the possibility of these guys attaining information by any means necessary to be all that ridiculous.

You've been guilty of doing the same thing in past threads, so don't even try to play this card.

I'm sure that I have - but that was probably with some of our lovely "you're such a fucking moron, blah blah blah" type members who are incapable of having a civil discussion. Anyway, I didn't mean to say that I had never done it - I'm just saying that it's wishful thinking for anyone here, myself included.

Now this is something I can agree with you on. :D

I'll take what I can get :mr_t:
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Loopz said:
Dude, you're such a jackass. Get a fucking grip man.

Nice to see you too, Loopz. Nothing like a clever introductory sentence or two to drive your point home.

If this is true, can you explain to me how the hell it is we're the good guys?
This is why cops have to put up with things like search warrants and do things BY THE BOOK. You do things the right way because YOU CLAIM THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. The moment you decide you can be just like whoever it is you're fighting, that's the moment you have ceased to be able to claim to be doing the right thing. America's doctrine was always that of retaliation against hostile acts to us or our allies...the moment we began this awful 'pre-emptive' shit, is the time when we ceased to be the light of the world in many of our allies' eyes.

"Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" are always relative terms, unless you're talking about fairy tales. There'll always be mishaps, foulups, screwups, and even atrocities on both sides of the field - so the question is always a judgement call about whether or not one side's victory will lead to a signficantly better result, all things considered. And I think that the conflict in Iraq, messy as it may be at the moment, will lead to a much better result in the end.

The "pre-emptive shit" had been building up for a good twelve years. The guy refused to cooperate and was unanimously voted against by the UN - who determined that he was in gross violation of their own sanctions. Certain members of the UN simply chose not to enforce punishment because they had political/financial interests in seeing Saddam's regime survive. Why would they vote against his actions, which were punishable by military force as declared by the sanctions, and then choose not to enforce them? It's either irresponsible or self-serving, neither of which are acceptable in my book.

The question is this...do you promote democracy with the barrel of a gun, or do you do it by acting with clear moral authority and knowing that your way of life will eventually be more seductive to those who are oppressed and will fight to get it THEMSELVES. Eastern Europe embraced democracy, not by invading US forces crushing Communist dictatorships, but by those people knowing they were getting a raw deal, being fed up and fighting for it on their own.

I really don't think this is about dumping democracy on people that want nothing to do with it. I just don't think that's how this got started. I think that it was more a result of the continual defiance of Saddam's regime. After starting things out with an unprovoked attack on a neighboring country, this guy repeatedly violated sanctions and eventually ended up throwing out UN inspectors, all the while choosing to fire upon patrol jets flying over Iraq's no-fly zones.

/best Cartman voice

"FUCK THE UN!! I DO WHAT I WONT!!"

/best Cartman voice

I agree that the ideal scenario would've been for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam themselves, but this just wasn't physically possible. As primitive as Saddam's armies were in comparison to ours, they could've easily crushed any uprising by the people of Iraq. And Saddam did, in fact, crush his fair share of revolts. And then he killed their families and everyone they had contact with. In fact, there were a few significant uprisings during the first Gulf War after Bush Sr. left them out in the cold - which I found to be one of the most shameful moments in our military and/or political history. Maybe it seemed right at the time, but that was just an awful move, in retrospect. Anyway, there's just too large of a division between civilian and military firepower for that type of thing to be physically possible.

Just my thoughts.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
Keep bumping the topic Galfordo. Your arguments are so inane all you do is keep these things at the top.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
Keep bumping the topic Galfordo. Your arguments are so inane all you do is keep these things at the top.

I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread got under your skin.

:tickled:
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
galfordo said:
This message is hidden because galfordo is on your ignore list.

Cry for attention little man. No one needs even read your posts to know what kind of mindless drivel you'd right. ;)
 
Top