| |
News Center | Mason News | News Center |
| SEARCH: |  |
| TheSpringGarden Plants & trees, gardening products & equiptment, homedecor | SunglassesEyeglasses All stunning brand names sunglasses at the great prices | DIYHomeSupplies Do it yourself woodworking projects & home remodeling supplies | UnitedPlus Gift Ideas. Diecasts, Figurines, American Heroes, and much more |
| CarPartsAccessoriesEtc Search and shop for auto parts & accessories online. Simple & Convenient | Sewing Machines Top notch sewing machines, vacuums, and appliances. For home or commercial. | Patio & Landscape Ready for family BBQ party this summer? A Large selection of outdoor furnitures | FontsWorld Looking for those cool fonts? Here, variety of all around the world fonts. Free Download. |
| |||||||
| Army What's up with the Army? |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-13-2008, 02:15 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 The Pentagon Early Bird 13 Feb 2008 February 13, 2008 placeRandomImg() Use of these news items does not reflect official endorsement. Reproduction for private use or gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. Item numbers indicate order of appearance only. This is the single print version. Use the PRINT command in your browser to print the entire Early Bird as one document. (NOTE: This single file format is a long document and can use 50 or more pages of paper.) Read Headlines, then scroll down to read the entire article !! Links will not Link out.IRAQ
New York Times February 13, 2008 Military Analysis Making A Case For A Pause In Troop Cutbacks In Iraq By Michael R. Gordon WASHINGTON — There is an overarching reason American commanders in Iraq want a pause in American troop reductions this summer: The United States has learned through painful experience that security can rapidly deteriorate if it overestimates the ability of Iraq’s forces to keep the peace. The case for temporarily halting the reductions was endorsed Monday by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who had previously voiced hope for greater reductions to ease the enormous strain on the military. But the die was cast last month when President Bush said during a visit to Kuwait that he was prepared to give his Iraq commander whatever forces he needed. With Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, advocating that the United States “let things settle a bit” after the current round of troop reductions, and with Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, warning, by contrast, that the Army is “stretched and stressed” by its constant deployments, some sort of trade-off had to be made. For now, at least, securing Iraq has won. Mr. Gates has not said how long the pause should last before troop withdrawals resume, adding that Mr. Bush must decide the matter. But one senior American officer estimated that a pause of three to four months would be needed after the American force shrinks to 15 combat brigades in July from 20 brigades at the height of the “surge” last year. “We have momentum, and we must maintain this momentum,” said the officer, who asked not to be identified because final decisions on troop levels for 2008 have yet to be made at the White House. “Without a pause to assess trends, we could make a serious mistake.” In recommending a pause, American commanders in Iraq are partly guided by the past. When General Casey commanded American forces in Iraq — he was General Petraeus’s predecessor and served there from mid-2004 until early 2007 — the United States put a premium on transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqis. But insurgents stepped up their attacks. Some Iraqi forces engaged in wantonly sectarian operations. Violence steadily increased. With the addition of some 30,000 American troops and guidance from a new counterinsurgency strategy, the American military has reduced violence to 2005 levels. The military gains have yet to be followed by the sort of major progress toward Iraq political reconciliation that Bush administration officials had hoped for. But the gains have had the unintended effect of encouraging an increase in the Sunni volunteers who have aligned themselves with the Americans. And Bush administration officials are still trying to make political headway in Iraq this year by pressing for a law defining the powers of provincial authorities and for provincial elections. In the United States, politicians tend to speak as if the war is lost or all but won. In Iraq, American commanders suggest that the war still hangs in the balance and worry about preserving tangible, but fragile, security gains. Military officials and experts outside government who favor a pause make several arguments. First, the military is cutting the number of American combat brigades by a quarter. By July, the reduction will have only brought the number of United States troops down to 130,000 or so from the current level of about 160,000, restoring troop levels to those in place at the beginning of 2007, or perhaps even slightly higher. Many American forces will remain involved in logistics, training Iraqi forces and other support missions. But the troop cutbacks are a substantial diminution in combat power, one that will make it more difficult to mobilize forces for major operations. Second, Iraq’s political course is still highly uncertain, and some political steps could add to the demands on American forces there. If provincial elections are held this year, American and Iraqi forces would need to safeguard the voting, as in past elections. Another variable is that the United States wants to reduce the number of Iraqis in detention centers, partly to encourage efforts at political reconciliation. Along with the potential return of additional refugees to Iraq, that may introduce another complication. There are also some 70,000 mostly Sunni volunteers who have aligned themselves with the American military. The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government remains suspicious of the volunteers, who American commanders say need to be enlisted in Iraq’s security forces and given jobs to discourage many of them from returning to their insurgent ways. The duration of the cease-fire declared by Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, and the extent of Iraq’s support for Shiite militants is another wild card. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a predominantly Iraqi group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership, has been pushed north toward Mosul but is still active. Lastly, the Iraqi Army and the police are expanding. But American officers want to carefully monitor their progress and try to improve their abilities. That involves not only training the forces and supporting them with aircraft and logistics but also working with them on operations. American officials favor a gradual process of putting Iraqi forces in the lead and backing them up when necessary, not a wholesale transfer of responsibilities. When the United States ceded authority to the Iraqis prematurely in Diyala Province in 2006, the Iraqis engaged in sectarian attacks, Qaeda militants presented themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis and, a year later, American forces had to mount a major operation to reclaim Baquba, the provincial capital. A delay in making reductions would increase the strain on American troops. The Army is facing a serious shortfall in captains. And the number of new recruits who have not graduated from high school is growing. That means, one American officer said, that enlistment standards are being lowered at a time when the military faces counterinsurgency and nation-building tasks that are more complex than the traditional missions during the cold war. For all this, there is no guarantee that the strategy of bringing political stability to Iraq will succeed. But there is also little prospect that there will ever be enough political support in the United States for another surge. For the American commanders, that is an unstated but additional reason to be cautious about cutting back. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579888.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP USA Today February 13, 2008 Pg. 6 Speaker May Dissolve Iraqi Parliament By Wire reports BAGHDAD -- The speaker of Iraq's parliament threatened Tuesday to disband the legislature, saying it appears to be too dysfunctional to approve the budget or adopt other laws aimed at easing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq's constitution allows Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a member of the minority Sunni faction, to dissolve the parliament if one-third of its members request the move and a majority of lawmakers approve. Al-Mashhadani said he had sufficient backing for the move from five political blocs, but he refused to name them. His comments followed a contentious session that saw many legislators storm out after blocking a vote on the 2008 budget. Some Iraqi legislators have threatened to withdraw support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki's government has survived despite the constantly shifting alliances between Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds. Last year's U.S. troop increase was designed to bring down violence and allow the Iraqi government to focus on issues such as an oil law and provincial elections that could ease tensions. Other Iraqi lawmakers including Bahaa al-Araji, a member of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc, echoed al-Mashhadani's call. "We believe the crisis of trust continues to grow and will affect the work of government," he said. Meanwhile, Attorney General Michael Mukasey made a surprise visit to Baghdad today, saying that as hundreds of new judges take the bench the Iraqi legal system is showing signs of rebirth. "I'm told there has been steady progress," Mukasey said in an interview with USA TODAY. "I want to see for myself what's happening." "It's important in Iraq for the same reason it's important everyplace else, which is to say that the alternative is the rule of force," he said. The Justice Department has dispatched its lawyers to Iraq as advisers since May 2003. More than 200 Justice Department employees, including FBI agents and prosecutors, are now working in Iraq. In the past two years, the number of judges has increased from 500 to more than 1,200, says John Euler, Rule of Law Counselor for the Justice Department. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579876.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times February 13, 2008 Iraqis Search For 2 Kidnapped Journalists By Alissa J. Rubin and Qais Mizher BAGHDAD — Iraqi security forces in the southern city of Basra searched Tuesday for two CBS television journalists who were captured there over the weekend, while in Baghdad Parliament remained stalemated on the budget and other major legislation. A prominent Shiite legislator, Baha al-Araji, told an Iraqi satellite television channel that there were demonstrations in the streets, that Parliament should be disbanded and that new elections should be held. His frustration was echoed by many lawmakers. The Constitution requires that lawmakers approve the budget before they end this session of Parliament. The journalists, a cameraman-photojournalist who worked for CBS News and his interpreter, were taken from the Sultan Palace Hotel on Sunday by men who appeared to be members of the security forces, according to a senior security official in Basra. There were indications on Tuesday that the kidnappers were linked to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, but it was unclear how close their relationship was or whether it was still active. Basra is at least partly controlled by armed gangs. The British military, which had been responsible for security there, transferred authority to the Iraqis in mid-December. Harith al-Ethari, the head of Mr. Sadr’s Basra office, said his organization “didn’t have anything to do with the kidnapping.” However, he acknowledged that one of two people who have links to Mr. Sadr and who have been connected by the senior security official to the kidnapping appeared to have been in the area of the hotel at the time of the kidnapping. That person, Luay al-Jazeri, was at the hotel and “it was his bad luck that the kidnapping happened at the same time as his visit,” Mr. Ethari said. The security forces were proceeding gingerly in order to avoid antagonizing the kidnappers, said the senior security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak about the case publicly. “There are mediation efforts with people close to the kidnappers going on,” he said. Journalists have been frequent targets in Iraq. The body of an Iraqi journalist abducted two days ago was found in Baghdad and identified Tuesday morning. The journalist, Hisham Mijuet Hamdan, 27, worked for two small newspapers. Parliament is arguing over three main pieces of legislation: the budget, a provincial powers law and a broad amnesty law that would allow thousands of detained Sunnis and Shiites to go free. There had been a deal among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis to approve all three, but because different parties favored each law, each party was afraid to vote on one of the other laws first, for fear that the law it wanted passed would be delayed. Hassan Sinead, a member of Parliament from Dawa, the party of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, repeated the refrain heard often in the last few weeks: “Tomorrow maybe we will vote.” Abeer Mohammed, Khalid al-Ansary and Balen Y. Younis contributed reporting. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579871.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times February 13, 2008 Pg. 1 Limbo For U.S. Women Reporting Iraq Assaults By James Risen WASHINGTON — Mary Beth Kineston, an Ohio resident who went to Iraq to drive trucks, thought she had endured the worst when her supply convoy was ambushed in April 2004. After car bombs exploded and insurgents began firing on the road between Baghdad and Balad, she and other military contractors were saved only when Army Black Hawk helicopters arrived. But not long after the ambush, Ms. Kineston said, she was sexually assaulted by another driver, who remained on the job, at least temporarily, even after she reported the episode to KBR, the military contractor that employed the drivers. Later, she said she was groped by a second KBR worker. After complaining to the company about the threats and harassments endured by female employees in Iraq, she was fired. “I felt safer on the convoys with the Army than I ever did working for KBR,” said Ms. Kineston, who won a modest arbitration award against KBR. “At least if you got in trouble on a convoy, you could radio the Army and they would come and help you out. But when I complained to KBR, they didn’t do anything. I still have nightmares. They changed my life forever, and they got away with it.” Ms. Kineston is among a number of American women who have reported that they were sexually assaulted by co-workers while working as contractors in Iraq but now find themselves in legal limbo, unable to seek justice or even significant compensation. Many of the same legal and logistical obstacles that have impeded other types of investigations involving contractors in Iraq, like shootings involving security guards for Blackwater Worldwide, have made it difficult for the United States government to pursue charges related to sexual offenses. The military justice system does not apply to them, and the reach of other American laws on contractors working in foreign war zones remains unclear five years after the United States invasion of Iraq. KBR and other companies, meanwhile, have required Iraq-bound employees to agree to take personnel disputes to private arbitration rather than sue the companies in American courts. The companies have repeatedly challenged arbitration claims of sexual assault or harassment brought by women who served in Iraq, raising fears among some women about going public with their claims. The issue gained national attention when Jamie Leigh Jones, a 23-year-old former employee of KBR, testified at a Congressional hearing in December that she had been gang-raped by co-workers in Iraq in 2005. She appeared again on Tuesday and talked in detail about the episode, urging lawmakers to make it easier for crime victims to sue employers. “Victims of crime perpetrated by employees of taxpayer-funded government contracts in Iraq deserve the same standard of treatment and protection governed by the same laws whether they are working in the U.S. or abroad,” she said. Since she spoke out publicly in December, other women have begun to step forward. Ms. Jones and her lawyers said 38 women who worked as contractors in Iraq, Kuwait and other countries had contacted her since she testified to discuss their own experiences. Now, Congressional leaders are seeking answers from the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies to try to determine the scope of the threats facing women who are contractors. Paul Brand, a Chicago psychologist who counsels contractors who have served in Iraq, said the harassment of female workers by male colleagues was common. “The extent of the harassment varies greatly from contractor to contractor, depending on how diligently they screen job candidates and management’s willingness to encourage women to report problems,” he said. “In many instances, very little or nothing is done.” Comprehensive statistics on sexual assaults in Iraq are unavailable because no one in the government or the contracting industry is tracking them. Court documents, interviews with those who were victims, their lawyers and other professionals, along with the limited data made available by the Bush administration, suggest a troubling trend. The Criminal Investigation Command of the Army has reported that it investigated 124 cases of sexual assault in Iraq over the last three years. Those figures, provided to Senator Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who has taken the lead in the Senate on the issue, include cases involving both contractors and military personnel, but do not include cases involving contractors or soldiers investigated by other branches of the military. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the State Department has separately reported that it has investigated four cases of rape or sexual assault involving female contractors, including Ms. Jones’s case. But the Pentagon has so far failed to respond to a request from Mr. Nelson for more comprehensive data, including the number of rape examinations done by military doctors in Iraq on behalf of female contractors. What is more, the Bush administration has not offered to develop a coordinated response to the problem, aides to Senator Nelson and experts have said. Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for KBR, said the company would protect women working in Iraq. “KBR’s commitment to the safety and security of all employees is unwavering,” she said in a statement. “One instance of sexual harassment or assault is too many and unacceptable.” The company declined to say how many female employees had reported that they were victims of sex crimes in Iraq. The administration’s decision to rely so heavily on outside contractors — about 180,000 contractors work in Iraq, significantly outnumbering United States military personnel in the country — probably made it inevitable that contractor crime would emerge as a problem as the war dragged on. KBR, by far the largest military contractor in Iraq, says that it now has 2,383 women there, of a total work force of 54,170. A shooting in Baghdad last September involving Blackwater guards that left 17 Iraqis dead highlighted the lack of clarity in the laws governing contractors. In cases involving sexual assault, for example, soldiers and other military personnel can be prosecuted under the military justice system, but that system does not apply to contractors. Instead, a little-used law, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, seems to be the closest statute that could apply to contractors charged with rape, but its legal reach has been under wide debate since the Blackwater shootings. Women who worked as contractors in Iraq say that while on the job they encountered sexual discrimination and harassment, which sometimes veered dangerously to sexual assaults and even rapes. Linda Lindsey, of Houston, who worked for KBR in Iraq from 2004 until early 2007, said that she often saw evidence of sexual harassment or discrimination, and that male supervisors often tried to force female employees to grant sexual favors in exchange for promotions or other benefits. She added that the company’s management seemed unwilling to take action to improve working conditions for women in Iraq. “We filed complaints against one supervisor, and the complaints disappeared,” Ms. Lindsey said in an interview. “The impression you got was that they really didn’t want to hear it, because the money was coming in. Most of it was bad management on-site.” Pamela Jones, of Texas, a KBR logistics coordinator in Kuwait in 2003 and 2004, was sexually assaulted by a supervisor. “It was known that if you started complaining that you could lose your job,” said Ms. Jones, who added that she reported it to management. “They give you an 800 number to report. But then they shoved it under the rug, and they told me I was a pest.” She later won an arbitration award from KBR, according to her Houston lawyer, Peter Costea. Lawyers for women who have reported that they were raped or assaulted while working in Iraq say that one of the biggest obstacles they face is the arbitration requirement. That means that women who say they were victimized have had great difficulty taking KBR to court for failing to better protect its female employees in Iraq. KBR defended the arbitration process, saying it is fair. The fact that Ms. Kineston and Pamela Jones won awards is an indication that the system works, said Ms. Browne, the KBR spokeswoman. Jamie Leigh Jones said she had been fighting to get her case out of the arbitration process and into a federal court, and she testified before a House committee on Tuesday in support of the need to change the laws governing private arbitration. KBR says it “disputes Ms. Jones’s version of the incident she alleges.” After her Congressional testimony in December, she also testified before a federal grand jury in Florida, which has begun a criminal inquiry into her case more than two years after she first reported the rape. Her lawyer, Todd Kelly, says he believes that the government has finally been prodded into action only because of the public attention brought by her case. “Her case came out on television before they said anything about a grand jury,” he said. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579923.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Times February 13, 2008 Pg. 15 Fear Stalls Final Push To Oust Iraq's Militants U.S. forces frustrated at reluctance in Diyala to ID al Qaeda By Richard Tomkins, The Washington Times HIMBUS, Iraq -- Fear is more than a four-letter concept in Iraq's Diyala province. It's real. It's constant. It's all-pervasive, and for years, while the area was under the thumb of al Qaeda, it was a matter of life and death. It still is all of the above. The number of active al Qaeda terrorists in the province north of Baghdad is thought to be less than a hundred following Operation Raider Harvest. Yet the fear remains palpable. "They would kill anyone, even a sheik, and no one could ask why," said a man who identified himself as Raad in the town of Himbus. "Everyone was afraid. People stayed at home because they could just stop you on the street and make you do things, take your money, beat you or kidnap you. "Four men were kidnapped a week before [U.S. and Iraqi forces] came. No one has seen them again." The mukhtar, or chief, of al-Hib village gave a similar assessment to a U.S. soldier. "Al Qaeda made us like chickens, afraid of everything," the mukhtar, or headman, of al-Hib reported. The mukhtar made the unusually frank admission in his home, away from prying eyes and eavesdropping, when a patrol from Iron Company, 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment paid a courtesy call. Raad's statement was made on a public street, but two of his friends kept passers-by from crowding around within hearing distance. It was not misplaced caution. U.S. troops in Diyala province reported an increase in tips about al Qaeda terrorists since beginning the operation Jan. 8. "The population is less nervous ... about giving us information on the remaining al Qaeda in the area," The Washington Times quoted Lt. Col. Rod Coffey, the unit's commander, as saying in an article last week. But interviews with the two Iraqis, both witnessed by this reporter, reflect a darker side for those who continue to live in the province. Building trust will take time. Himbus and al-Hib are located in what's called Diyala's breadbasket, a region rich in dates, pomegranates and oranges. Until the kickoff of the U.S.-Iraqi operation last month, no central government official had visited the area of some 10,000 residents for two years. Himbus was an al Qaeda sanctuary along a main infiltration route between Baghdad and the northern provinces. There were safe houses and headquarters buildings — basically, homes confiscated from their owners at gunpoint — training camps, arms and munitions caches. Under de facto al Qaeda rule, smoking cigarettes was forbidden, women were required to wear full hijab and music of any kind was banned, residents said. Beards could no longer be kept short and neatly trimmed, as Iraqi men prefer. No one was allowed out of doors between 5 p.m. and dawn. Those restrictions are gone, but fear of those who enforced it remains and is affecting U.S. and Iraqi security efforts. "People tell me they are still afraid of the terrorists and also afraid of us," said Sgt. Rudy Perreno of Iron Company. "I ask them, why us? When was the last time they heard of us cutting off heads? "It's damn frustrating. No one will point out the ones still here." An estimated 10 to 20 terrorists are thought to be in the Himbus area, as well as those who do their bidding, whether for ideology, for cash or under duress. They continue to plant bombs known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and threaten, through their very presence, retribution on those who cooperate with coalition forces. U.S. soldiers last month found a house booby-trapped with explosives — a house they searched and cleared just days earlier. Soldiers also found and destroyed four IED devices planted at spots in the road cleared a few days earlier. Every day platoons from Iron Company leave a small house they've established as a base and check and recheck abandoned houses, roads and buildings for new bombs. Every day they visit neighborhoods, stop in homes to take information and attempt to get intelligence on terrorists. Out of public sight, Iraqis are courteous, hospitable and friendly. On the street, those same Iraqis look straight ahead, eyes down, past the U.S. patrols and only smile or utter "salaam" ("peace") when soldiers say it to them first. Fear of retribution even trumps gratitude. An Iraqi woman's response to a question in sign language as to the health of the young child she was carrying was an almost imperceptible nod and a smile, faster than a blink, before she returned to her eyes-down march past a column of Stryker armored vehicles. Hours before, a medic in the convoy had helped treat the child who was thought near death because of dehydration and arranged additional treatment at a hospital. "I know you're afraid that there are still bad guys here," Col. Coffey told a group of men standing near a canal in Himbus recently. "We understand, but you'll never be safe as long as there are killers on the street. Tells us who they are, and we'll get them. Tell us in private; no one will know who said anything." When a U.S. soldier went to take a photograph of the group for identity checking, three men in it were seen to shrink back and stand behind those much taller. The second photo taken arranged those men in front, in unobstructed view. They weren't that clever," a soldier said. "We'll find out exactly who they are and where they live." U.S. forces also are trying to get those who have worked for al Qaeda to turn themselves in. "If they come to me, shall I tell them to surrender to you?" the mukhtar of Himbus asked Capt. David Beaudoin, the executive officer of Iron Company said "Yes, get the word out on the street. Tell them we understand good people were made to do things to protect their families." http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579954.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Seattle Times February 13, 2008 A Year Later, U.S. Troop Boost In Iraq Shows Results By Steven R. Hurst and Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Associated Press BAGHDAD — A year ago in Baghdad: Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents owned entire neighborhoods and key areas beyond. Iraq's government was adrift, and U.S. commanders weighed the real possibility of being trapped in a full-scale civil war. In response, on Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard, Washington launched an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer. A year later — through a mix of military might, new allies and some fortunate timing — Iraq looks very different. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is still struggling to get firm footing but has recently tried to push through some of the U.S.-demanded political reforms for reconciliation. The U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaida in Iraq, which is trying to regroup in northern parts of the country. After a sharp initial spike in military and civilian casualties, the numbers make a strong case that the surge generally accomplished its main goal. Before February 2007 was out, 1,801 Iraqis and 81 U.S. soldiers would die. By contrast, January 2008 saw figures of 609 and 39, respectively. The bulk of the added troops are expected to be pulled out by summer. On Monday, however, Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed taking another assessment of Iraqi security in midyear before deciding on any further cuts in U.S. troop strength. Anbar province, which stretches to the Saudi Arabian, Jordanian and Syrian borders west of Baghdad, fell virtually silent. It had been the heart of the Sunni insurgency and a bastion for al-Qaida in Iraq. The Americans got lucky there. Sunni tribal leaders who had been fighting the Americans, began in late 2006 to turn on al-Qaida, fed up with the terrorist organization's brutality and austere brand of Islam. U.S. forces quickly exploited the shift and began sponsoring similar movements in Baghdad and regions to the north and south. An estimated 80,000 members of the so-called Awakening Councils or Concerned Local Citizens are now fighting with — not against — U.S. and Iraqi forces. Many of the new allies are on the American payroll, taking home minimal salaries while the U.S. tries, with limited success, to persuade the al-Maliki government to bring them into the army, police and a civilian corps of workers to rebuild the shattered country. Into that mix, radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr placed a freeze on his feared Mahdi Army militia, causing a dramatic fall in death-squad killings in the capital and in attacks on American forces. The first half of the year saw enough casualties to make 2007 the deadliest for American troops, with 126 killed in May alone, along with 2,155 Iraqis. In all, at least 831 Americans have died in 12 months of the surge. The sharply lower figures for the second half of 2007 have only returned the pace of U.S. losses to what they were in late 2003 and early 2004. The Iraqi death toll is back down to where it was at the close of 2005. What's more, much of the key legislation designed to spur reconciliation among Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Arabs and the Kurds still languishes, with the Shiite al-Maliki either too politically weak or disinclined to take major steps toward a greater Sunni role. And then there is Iran. As the U.S. begins reversing the expansion of troop strength — back to the previous levels of about 130,000 — Iran has quietly placed itself in the control room of Iraq's future. Iran is gaming its future in Iraq on three fronts, the most public of which has been face-to-face meetings between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi. While Crocker has insisted the talks have not veered from topics surrounding Iraqi security, the Iraqi officials, some of whom sat in on the meetings, say their scope has expanded. The result, the officials said, was Iran's pledge to stop backing the Mahdi Army in return for the Bush administration lowering its rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. The Iraqis who spoke about the talks said they believed the release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate in December was a quid pro quo to Tehran for having turned its back on the Mahdi Army. The NIE, in an about-face, said Iran had halted its secret attempts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, contrary to White House claims that Iran was using a civilian nuclear-energy program as cover to build nuclear weapons. Since then, Washington's pronouncements have softened significantly. On the second front, Iran has shunned the Mahdi Army but has continued sending arms, fighters and money into Iraq. The leaders of these groups of fighters take orders from Iran and are known as the Ettelaat, shorthand for Iranian intelligence. Iraqi officials said that after al-Sadr announced a freeze on his militia in August, the Iranians sent in seven Ettelaat commanders — Iraqis loyal to Iran who had been training and handling elite Mahdi Army groups in Iran. These at the time had broken with the mainstream militia over the freeze. The commanders were said to have slowly infiltrated with more than 1,000 men armed and trained by Iran, with orders to continue harassing the Americans with roadside bombings, mortar and rocket attacks. The Ettelaat force in Iraq is recruiting more fighters from among disaffected Mahdi Army foot soldiers and commanders of the so-called "special groups," not only to keep American forces off balance but also as a sleeper brigade that would open all-out warfare should the United States attack Iran, a real fear in Tehran, the Iraqi officials said. Iran has now cut ties with al-Sadr after deciding his usefulness as a tactical tool against American forces has run its course. Now, the officials said, Iran has thrown its full backing behind the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the country's most powerful Shiite political insider. Ironically, al-Hakim has been a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to build a moderate Shiite political structure in the country. He has been used by Washington as a counterbalance to more radical Shiite tendencies and is seen as more open to sharing some power with the country's Sunni Muslim minority, which ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579864.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post February 13, 2008 Pg. 3 Rules for Lawyers Of Detainees Are Called Onerous Fair, Adequate Defense Questioned By Josh White, Walter Pincus and Julie Tate, Washington Post Staff Writers The cadre of civilian lawyers representing terrorism suspects held by the military at Guantanamo Bay are not allowed to meet their clients in private, without video surveillance. All their mail and notes must be turned over to the military. Classified information cannot be shared with their clients. They are not entitled to everything the government knows about their clients. Months before the trials of some of the detainees are set to begin, some of the attorneys say the Defense Department's regulations for their work are so onerous that they will be unable to provide a fair and adequate defense of their clients. "How can I defend him if he is not allowed to see or hear classified information?" asked Brent Mickum, the Washington attorney representing alleged al-Qaeda operative Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, commonly known as Abu Zubaida. "He can't play a meaningful role in his own defense." These challenges will confront the lawyers who represent the six men charged this week with conspiring to commit the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, whom the Bush administration wants to try before a panel of military officers later this year. Mickum is scheduled to meet his client, who is not one of the six, for the first time next week, but he is already worried that the secrecy rules will present a heavy burden. Although the government says the cases against the six -- five of whom were aggressively questioned by the CIA during lengthy stays at secret prisons -- are now ready to proceed, defense attorneys say that the logistical challenges associated with defending such unusual clients under heavy guard on an isolated island will slow and hamper their preparations. Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represents terrorism suspect and Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, said yesterday that "the real concern with the military commission process is that the evidence brought forward won't be clean but will be deeply tainted with torture" that occurred during the interrogations. Gutierrez said she is concerned that prosecutors will cite "national security concerns and will deny the lawyers and the detainees any background about the [witness] statements that are offered. That will be a way of manipulating the process and of keeping the taint of torture secret." She is barred by the military rules from discussing anything related to her meetings with Khan. The Bush administration, trying to shore up support for the military-trial procedures, has cabled U.S. embassies around the globe with instructions to emphasize that evidence obtained through torture will not be allowed, but that evidence obtained through treatment considered "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" is to be allowed, the Associated Press reported last night. The four-page cable also noted that defendants can object to statements they think were coerced, with rulings to be made by the chief military judge. The trial procedures, which were sanctioned by Congress after a lengthy legislative fight in 2006, have nonetheless been heavily criticized by European lawyers and politicians. Yesterday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said on a BBC radio call-in show that "we have some concerns" about how fair the military trial will be for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the most prominent of the six newly charged defendants. "We don't . . . we would never use waterboarding," Miliband said, referring to the CIA's admission that it used that simulated drowning technique to coerce disclosures from Mohammed and two other detainees. Chief among the defense attorneys' concerns are that details of the CIA's aggressive techniques will be shielded from the court because they are classified and that the Pentagon will be unable to compel the CIA to send its employees to testify at military commissions or produce evidence of torture. "We are not in the position to compel any other government agency to produce information," Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, legal adviser to the convening authority for military commissions, said on Monday. Yesterday, Army Col. Stephen David, the chief defense lawyer for military commissions, said he has appointed only one military lawyer so far to represent Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was not held in CIA custody. But he is trying to find five more defense counsels to represent the others, who were held by the CIA; getting them will nearly double the size of his office. Civilian attorneys have not yet been appointed to represent, at the forthcoming trial, the five who were held in CIA custody. The American Bar Association, which the Pentagon had said would help arrange such representation, has refused to participate because it objects to the trial procedures. Those appointed must obtain security clearances and sign highly restrictive agreements barring them from discussing anything their clients say. "It could take months and months to just go over the classified information," David said. He added that there are numerous logistical and legal hurdles and that there will probably be challenges to the untested process itself. "Everything is magnified. You're not growing the garden in northern Indiana; you're growing the garden on the moon. There's no perspective." David said it is unclear what will happen if detainees choose to forgo legal representation. He acknowledged that it is inevitable that torture will be a central issue for judges to consider. "I don't know how you avoid the waterboarding issue," David said. "I don't know how, once that occurs, you ever avoid that issue. I don't know how you prevent defense counsel from probing into that. I don't know how you ever rehabilitate waterboarding or how you rehabilitate torture, whether it's your client or others saying things against your client." All mail from the lawyers to the detainees and from the detainees to their attorneys is screened by a Defense Department Privilege Team, whose job it is to stop anything the team determines not to be "legal mail." Mickum said he is concerned that he cannot share any classified information about his client with other lawyers who have clearances. "Not being able to talk to each other will do away with a means we found earlier helped us determine what was true or false," he said. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579873.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP New York Times February 13, 2008 U.S. Acts To Avert Tactic Expected In Qaeda Trial By Scott Shane and David Johnston WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials said Tuesday that they were confident that charges against six suspected members of Al Qaeda would survive expected defense contentions that the cases are based on unreliable statements obtained using harsh interrogation methods. The officials confirmed that the Justice Department and the Pentagon, aware of probable legal challenges involving possible mistreatment of prisoners, began an extensive effort in late 2006 to rebuild the cases against the six men using what officials called “clean teams” of agents and military investigators. By interviewing the prisoners again, and reassembling other evidence against them, the prosecutors could present evidence in court that would be harder for defense lawyers to challenge. But some legal experts said that approach might not defuse defense arguments that the initial investigations were tainted. The chief military prosecutor for detainees held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, Col. Lawrence J. Morris of the Army, declined to discuss the details of how prosecutors would deal with questions about the treatment of captured terrorism suspects. But, Colonel Morris added, “we will take very seriously our burden to present trustworthy evidence on which a panel can rely” in reaching a verdict. Dozens of F.B.I. agents have spent hundreds of hours at the Guantánamo detention center interviewing potential witnesses and suspects. In effect, they recreated intelligence files, thus avoiding information that might be tainted because it was obtained during interrogations using harsh techniques. The legal tactic was described on Tuesday by The Washington Post. The C.I.A. confirmed last week that one of the six defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the chief plotter of the 2001 attacks, was subjected to the technique known as waterboarding, considered by many legal authorities to be torture, while in C.I.A. custody. In addition to Mr. Mohammed, military prosecutors filed charges on Monday against Mohammed al-Qahtani, sometimes described as the “20th hijacker,” who was denied entry into the United States in August 2001; and four men who officials believe played a logistical role in the plot, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash. The charges, for which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, include conspiracy, murder, attacking civilians, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism. The clean-team investigators, who had not been briefed on earlier interrogations by the C.I.A. using harsher tactics, adopted non-confrontational interview techniques. One government official said some of those charged this week spoke openly about their roles in the Sept. 11 plot. The investigators applied many of the same standards in Guantánamo that are commonly used in criminal cases in the United States. But unlike suspects in criminal cases, the Guantánamo detainees were not allowed to have a lawyer present during the interviews. Agents involved in the interviews were handpicked for their language and interview skills, law enforcement officials said. They spent many hours studying their assigned suspects and consulting with behavioral scientists before designing strategies to elicit the information they wanted. While C.I.A. interrogations of the same suspects, sometimes using harsh physical pressure, were aimed largely at preventing more attacks, a government official said the clean-team interviews were intended to obtain information about past plots in order to build a prosecution. Kenneth Wainstein, chief of the national security division at the Justice Department, said in a telephone interview that federal prosecutors assigned to the Guantánamo cases had been centrally involved in the investigation since 14 alleged senior Qaeda operatives were moved to Guantánamo in September 2006. Mr. Wainstein said the investigators had been advised by “seasoned prosecutors who are very adept at building cases and anticipating the challenges down the road.” But Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University law professor, questioned whether the repeat interrogations could eliminate the taint of previous harsh treatment. “No amount of redoing the interrogation would clean that up,” Mr. Issacharoff said. “There’s no such thing as a do-over when you have an abuse of fundamental rights.” Jameel Jaffer, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer and co-author of a book on treatment of prisoners, said that the law setting up military commissions banned outright any evidence obtained by torture. The judge decides whether to admit information produced using coercive techniques short of torture, a provision that defense lawyers are likely to use aggressively, Mr. Jaffer said. “Every time they try to introduce a piece of evidence, the defense lawyers are going to say, ‘This piece of evidence is unreliable’” because of coercion, Mr. Jaffer said. William Glaberson and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579969.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Philadelphia Inquirer February 13, 2008 Nazi Model Is Cited For Sept. 11 Cases A U.S. cable defends seeking death penalties, using the Nuremberg trials as a comparison. By Matthew Lee, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II. A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained yesterday by the Associated Press says execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted, pointing to the 1945-46 International Military Tribunals as an example. Twelve of Adolf Hitler's senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end. The unclassified cable was sent Monday by the State Department to U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide. In it, the department advises U.S. diplomats to refer to Nuremberg if asked by foreign governments or news media about the legality of capital punishment in the Sept. 11 cases. "International Humanitarian Law contemplates the use of the death penalty for serious violations of the laws of war," says the cable, composed by the office of the department's legal adviser, John Bellinger. "The most serious war criminals sentenced at Nuremberg were executed for their actions," it says. The cable makes no link between the scale of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, which included the killing of six million European Jews and other minorities, and those allegedly committed by the Guantanamo detainees, who are accused of murder and war crimes in connection with Sept. 11, in which nearly 3,000 people died. But it makes clear that the White House sees Nuremberg as a historic precedent in asking for the Sept. 11 defendants to be executed. The decision to seek the death penalty for the six Guantanamo defendants is likely to draw criticism from the international community. A number of countries, including U.S. allies, have said they would object to the use of capital punishment for their nationals held at Guantanamo. The cable is written in a question-and-answer format in anticipation of inquiries that diplomats may get from foreigners about the Pentagon's Monday announcement of the trial and charges. Much of the cable is taken up with descriptions of the defendants and the allegations against them, as well as assurances they will receive fair trials. The Nuremberg reference is in the response offered to the sample question: "Doesn't the application of the death penalty to these defendants violate international law?" The one-word answer provided before the explanation that invokes Nuremberg: "No." The proceeding will be the first capital trial under the terrorism-era U.S. military tribunal system. A death sentence requires the concurrence of all members of the military panel who are present. Sentences of 10 years to life in prison require concurrence of three-fourths of the panel members. Despite the confidence of military prosecutors, the case has been clouded by revelations that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attacks, was subjected to interrogation tactics that critics call torture. Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "The administration now has placed itself in a terrible bind because it subjected at least some, if not all, the six men to harsh interrogation techniques that the world regards as torture." The cable instructs diplomats to advise foreign governments that the tribunal will not accept evidence obtained through torture and that the defendants can raise objections to any statements they say were made under coercion. Those decisions will be up to the judge, the cable says. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579946.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP Washington Post February 13, 2008 Pg. 3 White House Pushes Waterboarding Rationale Administration May Be Trying to Shore Up Prosecution of Terrorism Suspects By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer After years of refusing public comment on a particularly harsh CIA interrogation method, top Bush administration officials have suddenly begun pressing a controversial argument that it was legal for the CIA to strap prisoners to a board and pour water over their face to make them believe they were being drowned. The issue promises to play a role in the historic military prosecution of six al-Qaeda detainees for allegedly organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, in cases described by the Defense Department on Monday. One of the six detainees, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was subjected to the technique known as waterboarding after his capture in 2003, and four of the others were subjected to different "enhanced interrogation" tactics by the CIA. If the information the CIA collected is used in court, defense attorneys may attack it as tainted and unlawful. If the government relies instead on evidence the FBI collected in voluntary interrogations -- using the CIA information as a road map -- defense attorneys could still allege that the material is the "fruit of a poisonous tree" and unlawful. The government's defense of the waterboarding episodes, laid out in congressional testimony and administration statements over the past two weeks, relies on a complex legal argument that many scholars and human rights advocates say is at odds with settled law barring conduct that amounts to torture, at any time or for any reason. It also leaves open the possibility that, under the right conditions, the CIA could decide to use the tactic again. The strategy appears to be aimed primarily at ensuring that no CIA interrogators face criminal prosecution for using harsh interrogation methods that top White House and Justice Department lawyers approved in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Because waterboarding was deemed legal at the time by the Justice Department, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey told lawmakers, he has no grounds to launch a criminal probe of the practice. Supreme Court Justice Antonin M. Scalia echoed the administration's view when he said in a BBC Radio interview yesterday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. "It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia said. "And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game: How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?" White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters last week: "Any technique that you use, you use it under certain circumstances. It was something that they felt at that time was necessary, and they sought legal guidance to make sure that it was legal and that it was effective." Such detailed commentary on a classified interrogation program marks a departure for the administration, which for years had refused to confirm the use of waterboarding. Officials asserted that American lives would be put at risk if information about such an aggressive interrogation method were disclosed. Controversy quickly followed CIA Director Michael V. Hayden's confirmation last week that three al-Qaeda prisoners were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003. Hayden, Fratto and other Bush administration officials left open the possibility that President Bush could authorize the use of simulated drowning again, but conceded that recent court rulings and legislation might not allow it. The flurry of statements prompted fierce criticism from Democrats as well as strong condemnations from abroad. Manfred Nowak, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, said last week that the administration's use of waterboarding is "unjustifiable" and "absolutely unacceptable under international human rights law." Waterboarding usually involves pouring water over a captive's mouth and nose while he is strapped to an inclined board, with his head lower than his feet and a piece of cloth or cellophane placed over his face. Use of the tactic and its variations has long been condemned by the State Department, and it is explicitly barred by the U.S. Army Field Manual for the handling of military prisoners. But White House and Justice Department officials have said that the CIA was acting lawfully when it used the tactic. At the time, they noted, administration lawyers, led by then-White House counsel and future attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales, had concluded that al-Qaeda prisoners were not covered by protections of the Geneva Conventions. As a result, lawyers who reviewed the tactic at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel looked narrowly at whether the technique constituted torture, which is defined by statute as infliction of "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering on a captive. A pair of memos by that office concluded that waterboarding was not torture, possibly because its use was monitored and limited by someone with medical training whose role was to limit the severity of the pain. Those memos, one of which is still secret, paved the way for the CIA to use waterboarding. But as Mukasey and other officials acknowledged, the legal landscape has changed since 2003. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005, for example, that the Geneva protections apply to al-Qaeda prisoners, and subsequent legislation from Congress barred cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of captives. The net effect was to require the Bush administration, which had opposed the Supreme Court's position, to adhere to legal standards barring conduct that is less severe than torture as legally defined. In Senate testimony last month, for example, Mukasey emphasized that while waterboarding might be prohibited under some circumstances, it might be allowed if it did not "shock the conscience." That phrase was coined by the Supreme Court in a 1952 ruling against police brutality, which provoked criticism because it imposed an inherently subjective due-process standard. But it was implicitly embraced in legislation approved last year. Mukasey described the matter as "a balancing test of the value of doing something as against the cost of doing it," and refused lawmakers' demands that he render an absolute verdict on its legality. Fratto, in remarks to reporters last week, amplified the point by asserting that waterboarding could be legal if the government believed it was under imminent threat. But many legal experts say that such a "sliding scale" approach applies only to proscriptions against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which ranks a step below torture in U.S. and international human rights law. Philip B. Heymann, who was a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and now teaches at Harvard Law School, said the Bush administration is "trying to act as if they have wiggle room even if they don't." "There's a plausible argument that there's a sliding scale, but only if you have arrived at the position that it's not torture," Heymann said. "There is no sliding scale for torture." Unlike less severe abuse, torture is clearly banned by federal statute and international treaty, a fact that Mukasey acknowledged in testimony last week. "The torture statute applies across the board," he said, adding later that the prohibition is a "bright line." The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which governs the trial that is being sought for Mohammed and the other Sept. 11 defendants, also expressly bars the use of evidence obtained through torture. But the term is undefined in the statute, and it is unclear whether the commission would side with the Bush administration, which defends waterboarding, or the military, which forbids it. Most human rights groups and many lawyers who specialize in interrogation and detention laws maintain that waterboarding is torture, regardless of how carefully it is done -- because some pain is inflicted and victims are essentially coercively threatened with imminent death. "Virtually the entire rest of the world, including . . . every legislator who has spoken to the question, has concluded that waterboarding is categorically unlawful," former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Martin S. Lederman said in a blog posting Friday. But David B. Rivkin Jr., a Justice Department official in the Reagan era, said officials may be justified in using the tactic to prevent terrorist attacks in a time of imminent danger. "If you do something when you've suffered a horrible attack and you are expecting another attack any day, that is a very different context than something that you do for 20 years consistently," Rivkin said. The CIA said last week that it had been five years, almost to the day, since it last used waterboarding and that it has not been on its list of approved techniques since 2006. But the Bush administration has said it opposes bills pending in Congress to explicitly bar any future use of the tactic. http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080213579857.html <A href="http://68.142.200.12/us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?clean=0&fid=Inbox&mid=1_1837596_AEb PjkQAALDWR7NFAQXbE0bWeUM&pid=2&tnef=&prefFilename= e20080213aaindex_concat.html&cred=nF_JElrk.dIJLgzi wFz9kntMHwDSVclLSsLzQhzeyBhHPMBq7JnhCrtIqStmt3xK#T OP">RETURN TO TOP NPR February 12, 2008 Interview With Brig. Gen. Hartmann The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), 10:00 AM DIANE REHM: But before we begin our conversation, here in the studio, we’re joined by Air Force Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann. He’s legal adviser to the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. Good morning to you, General. Thanks for joining us. BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS HARTMANN [U.S. Air Force]: Good morning, Diane. REHM: General, it's been a protracted process, but this is the first time that charges have been brought against men alleged to be key figures in the 9/11 attacks. Can you explain to the audience exactly what the charges are? HARTMANN: Yes, Diane. The charges are conspiracy as the first offense and there are 169 acts alleged in connection with that conspiracy beginning in 1996 and continuing through September 11th, 2001, and then in addition to the conspiracy charges, the six people are charged with murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians and civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of propertyin violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support to terrorism. REHM: I understand that a military commission system will be used. Is that correct? HARTMANN: That’s correct, Diane, and it’s not new to the American system of justice. We’ve had military commissions since General George Washington. Andrew Jackson used them during the War of 1812; they were used for the conspirators following President Lincoln’s assassination and they were used quite regularly following the Second World War. REHM: Can you explain to us briefly how a military commission system would differ from a civilian trial? HARTMANN: The differences are relatively minor in the sense that you will have a jury, we call it a panel. If it’s a capital case, it’s a jury of at least 12 people; otherwise, it’s a jury of at least five people. You have a defense counsel. You have prosecutors. You have a judge. All those people are military by and large, but the accused, in addition to his right to a detailed military defense counsel, also has the right to civilian counsel at his own expense. You have a court reporter; it looks the same. You have extraordinary rights for the accused. Those rights include many of the rights that are common to the American practice of law and American expectation, the right to remain silent and to have no adverse inference, the right to counsel, the right to see the evidence that the prosecution will use against them and the right to call witnesses, including expert witnesses, the right to cross-examine, the right to be present during the presentation of evidence. And in this case, the accused will have a right of appeal automatically if he’s found guilty, if any of the accused are found guilty, they have an automatic right to appeal. That doesn’t exist normally in the civilian practice, but it does exists in this practice; it’s a unique right. In addition in this system, the convening authority, Mrs. Crawford, if there is a finding of guilt or a sentence, she can reduce the sentence or she can even dismiss the charge, which is another amazing right that’s available to the accused in these cases that simply isn’t available in the civilian world. So, in many ways, we’ve tried to have this system match the military justice system, particularly with regard to the rights of the defendants and those are the same rights that we provide to our uniformed soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and that’s quite an undertaking. REHM: Have any of those who have been charged been counseled thus far by attorneys? Have they had meetings? Have they met with them one-on-one? HARTMANN: Their right to counsel, Diane, went into effect yesterday when charges were sworn against them. Prior to that, they were in a detention status, which had nothing to do with the military commissions. They were being detained on Guantanamo Bay as unlawful alien enemy combatants who posed a danger to our soldiers on the battlefield. Now, they’re being moved into a different process, the military commission process, which deals with allegations of violations of the law of war, violations of the Military Commission Act. So this is the very beginning of the process for them as of yesterday, and they will have attorneys assigned to them, detailed to them by the chief defense counsel and I want to emphasize that we’re making available resources to the defense. They have 11 attorneys on their staff. They have the same number of paralegals that we have on the prosecution side and we are working to get them more attorneys. We have attorneys with the appropriate levels of clearance for them to assign to these cases. So I expect that relatively soon some action will be made with regard to that effort to get them counsel. REHM: General Hartmann, yesterday in The New York Times, sorry, this morning in The New York Times, Colonel Steven David, the chief military defense lawyer for th |
