Timeline: Prisoner Abuse in Iraq

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Timeline: Prisoner Abuse in Iraq
32
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 8:24pm

Here's a basic timeline of events. 


   MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/









  timeline
Prisoner abuse in Iraq


Key dates in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal








Aug. 31-Sept. 9, 2003
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who runs the military prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, conducts an inquiry on interrogation and detention procedures in Iraq. He suggests that prison guards can help set conditions for the interrogation of prisoners.


October-December
Many of the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib take place during this time period.



Oct. 13-Nov. 6
Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, provost marshal of the Army, investigates conditions of U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib. He finds problems throughout the prisons. Some units, including the 800th Military Police Brigade, did not receive adequate training to guard prisons, he notes. He also says military police (MPs) should not assist in making prisoners more pliable to interrogation, as their job is to keep prisoners safe.


Nov. 19
The 205th Military Intelligence Brigade is given responsibility for Abu Ghraib prison and authority over the 800th Military Police Brigade.


November
Two Iraqi detainees die in separate incidents that involved CIA interrogation officers.


Jan. 13, 2004
Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu Ghraib, first reports cases of abuse at the prison.


Jan. 16
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez orders a criminal investigation into reports of abuse at the prison by members of the brigade. The military also announces the investigation publicly.


Jan. 19
Sanchez orders a separate administrative investigation into the 800th MP Brigade. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba is appointed to conduct that inquiry on Jan. 31.


Late January - early February
President Bush becomes aware of the charges sometime in this time period, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, although the spokesman has not pinpointed a date. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld tells Bush of the charges, McClellan has said.


Feb. 23
Seventeen U.S. soldiers suspended from duties pending outcome of investigation.


Feb. 24
International Committee of the Red Cross provides the Coalition Authority with a confidential report on detention in Iraq. Portions of the report are published without ICRC consent by the Wall Street Journal on May 7.


March 3-9
Taguba presents his report to his commanders. He finds widespread abuse of prisoners by military police and military intelligence. He also agrees with Ryder that guards should not play any role in the interrogation of prisoners.


March 20
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt tells reporters six military personnel have been charged with criminal offenses.


Mid April
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asks CBS-TV to delay airing photographs it has obtained of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Myers says the photos would exacerbate an intense period of violence under way in Iraq. CBS delays its program for two weeks.


April 28

  • Rumsfeld meets with senators in a closed briefing on the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld neglects to mention the issue of prisoner abuse or the coming disclosure of photos.


  • CBS “60 Minutes II” airs the photos, setting off an international outcry. Bush first learns about these photos from the television report, his aides say.



  • Early May
    CIA confirms that some of its officers hid Iraqi prisoners from watchdog groups like the Red Cross.


    May 1
    An article by Seymour Hersh, published on The New Yorker magazine's Web site, reveals contents of Taguba's report.


    May 2
    Myers admits on ABC’s "This Week" that he has not yet read the Taguba report issued in March.


    May 3
    Officials say the Army has reprimanded seven soldiers in the abuse of inmates at Abu Ghraib.


    May 4
    U.S. Army discloses that it is conducting criminal investigations of 10 prisoner deaths in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and Iraq - beyond two already ruled homicides - plus another 10 abuse cases. (The number grows by two on May 5, when the CIA says it is investigating more cases.)


    May 5
    President Bush appears on two Arab television channels to address the scandal but does not apologize for the abuse of iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops. The following day Bush does apologize.


    May 6

  • The Washington Post publishes four additional photos.

  • President Bush privately admonishes Rumsfeld for not keeping him informed about the issue.



  • May 7
    Rumsfeld testifies before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on the issue of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Separately, Army Pfc. Lynndie England, shown in photographs smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners, is charged with assaulting detainees and conspiring to mistreat them.

    Source: Associated Press, MSNBC research, NBC News

    cl-nwtreehugger


    Community Leader:  In The News & Sports Talk
    I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW


    iVillage Member
    Registered: 04-16-2003
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 11:22am
    With respect to my opinion that the brass was condoning the behavior:

    Evidence of more widespread abuse

    By Jim Lobe

    WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's contention that the sexual humiliation and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison as depicted in photographs first disclosed two weeks ago were the work of just a "few bad apples" from a poorly trained military police unit is fast becoming untenable.

    Human rights groups and US lawmakers have made clear in the past several days that they had submitted to the administration from the outset of its "war on terror" a series of reports of widespread and systemic violations of the Geneva Conventions, not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, and even at the US navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    The Abu Ghraib scandal, which has so far prompted several public apologies by President George W Bush and three nationally televised hearings in the US Congress, has resulted in a sharp drop in public support for the US occupation in Iraq, according to two polls released this week by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. According to the polls, more than three quarters of respondents said they had seen the photos, and half said they marked a "major setback" to US strategy in Iraq.

    The accounts of former detainees themselves - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo - have also put a question over the Pentagon's insistence that it has provided humane treatment to prisoners under its control. Moreover, a list of approved interrogation techniques - among them sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation and the presence of military dogs - provided by the Pentagon to congressional committees this week includes some that are prohibited not only by the Geneva Conventions, but also by existing US military manuals.

    For example, a 1983 manual states "prolonged solitary confinement for the purpose of extracting information in questioning violates policy" and "extreme deprivation of sensory stimuli ... is a form of torture". Both techniques, which are authorized under the newly disclosed list subject to approval by the commanding general, have reportedly been used against detainees.

    "Stress and duress" interrogation techniques - in which detainees are forced to stand or assume other positions in ways that induce physical stress or pain over time - have also been often applied against Iraqi and Afghan detainees, according to reports by rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), although they, too, are discouraged by US military manuals. Under the guidelines for Iraq, they are supposed to be employed only with a commander's approval.

    Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, insisted in congressional testimony on Wednesday that all guidelines had been vetted by Pentagon lawyers to ensure compliance with the conventions. (The administration has said detainees at Guantanamo are not subject to the conventions, although it has promised to treat them in a manner that is "consistent" with them.)

    But they were partially contradicted on Thursday by their two deputies, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the chief's vice chairman, General Peter Pace. They both told senators they did not know who in the Pentagon hierarchy had authorized the use of such techniques, and Pace said he would consider the binding by a Marine of a naked and hooded enemy in a stressful position - as depicted in a videotape of an Iraqi detainee - to violate the Geneva Conventions. After some prompting, Wolfowitz agreed.

    According to one account in Thursday's Washington Post, several military lawyers who were knowledgeable about the interrogation guidelines appealed to a senior representative of the New York State Bar Association to try to persuade the Pentagon to revise them due to concern that they violated the conventions. "None of these techniques is legal," according to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who wrote in the Washington Post on Thursday that he worried that the photos of sexual humiliation risked overshadowing the more common use of "stress and duress" tactics.

    London-based Amnesty International, which has also submitted several reports of abuses against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, issued its own statement Thursday on the subject. "These techniques of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, amounting to war crimes, and violate the Convention Against Torture to which the US is a state party," it said.

    But US abuses have gone far beyond those associated with interrogation, according to the two groups. HRW released a statement on Thursday charging that mistreatment and abuse of detainees in Afghanistan have been "systemic", and called for the Pentagon to immediately open detention facilities under its control to independent monitors, an appeal in which Amnesty joined in a separate statement on Thursday.

    In a March report entitled "Enduring Freedom: Abuses by US Forces in Afghanistan", HRW detailed a series of problems that it said had become "routine" in Afghanistan, ranging from beatings, sometimes quite severe; dousing with cold water or exposure to freezing temperatures; "stress and duress" techniques; sleep and sensory deprivation; forced nakedness and being photographed while naked.

    Much the same story was told in an account that appeared in Wednesday's New York Times about an Afghan police colonel who had been detained for six weeks last summer. He said that while in custody he was beaten, stripped naked and sexually abused by his captors, who accused him of working with the Taliban. He had submitted testimony about his experience to the Afghan Human Rights Commission after his release, but the commission received no reply to its request for a meeting.

    "There is compelling evidence suggesting that US personnel have committed acts against detainees amounting to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment," said Brad Adams who directs HRW's Asia division. He added that the Pentagon has still not reported the results of investigations of two detainees' deaths in 2002, two of which were labelled "homicides" by US doctors.

    The US Army admits it is investigating 10 prisoner deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, and another 10 cases of abuse. The number of prisoner deaths in US custody in the two countries stands at 14. Three US reservists are to be court-martialled for carrying out physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners. A number of other soldiers have been formally accused or suspended.

    But to a growing number of observers, the pattern of detainee abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq appears strikingly similar. "It appears to be exactly the same techniques used in Afghanistan as were used in Iraq," Senator Patrick Leahy told Rumsfeld on Wednesday. "I don't think they're getting their techniques over the Internet. There's obviously some systemic training."

    While Rumsfeld, who flew to Baghdad on Thursday, demurred, Leahy said he had pressed the administration for 11 months about abuses reported by rights groups and the media but had never received a persuasive reply other than an assurance that the US military was abiding by the conventions.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE15Ak02.html

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 11:41am

    I think you have a valid point there, regarding the US holding itself above the law.


    In the Army, there's a catch phrase called "Lead by example."


    While I hold these soldiers fully accountable for their own actions, I also hold everyone up the chain of command, including the Commander-in-Chief accountable as well.

    ________________________________________________

    "If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-18-2000
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 11:52am
    Well said.
    cl-Libraone~

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 12:11pm
    Well not to any suprise this is where we disagree. I "don't" think it is possible because there is no training or enough preperation that can prevent this with every soldier in every troop dealing with every situation. Do you suggest having a psychiatrist along with medics at every area easily to calm down those whose feelings are headed in a destructive path? I also disagree that the "top" is mainly to blame for this kind of behavior because not suprisingly you think they in fact "encourage" it...unless I took that wrong. I think the human nature part is what sets my reality in my opinion that this kind of behavior no matter how well prepared can prevent this kind of behavior happening at wartime.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 12:45pm
    After reading Janna's article I was a little more skeptical in how high the blame must be carried. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The thing I don't get is if this is indeed encouraged, why would a "trained" soldier rat them out so to speak? Also it sounds silly to me have George Bush understand and support these treatments but not think it would ever surface especially since it's being supposedly "reported" that it's being done over in Afghanistan and other areas as well? Even on top of that right before election time this seems a little to coincidental to become so widespread and with the media thriving off this it makes you wonder who actually had the agenda in the first place. Something to think about and I guess after extensive investigation we'll see the truth emerge undoubtedly.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 1:05pm

    When you've spent your whole life marching to your OWN beat, eventually it catches up with you.


    And Mr. Bush's pretty little glass house is beginning to crumble.

    ________________________________________________


    "If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- Bob Day, Marriage Equality Rally, Rochester NY

    Help in the fight against a constitutional amendment!


    <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

    ________________________________________________

    "If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 1:28pm
    You would like to think so wouldn't you? How about waiting for the investigations and results of them to knock on Mr. Bush? I think we all live in glass houses.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 1:49pm

    I can do two things.

    ________________________________________________

    "If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 2:41pm
    <>

    Yes you can and making a hobby out of it seems oh so fun! LMAO!

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-31-2003
    Fri, 05-14-2004 - 5:21pm
    If you are watching the polls, you will also notice that Kerry has not jumped ahead of Bush in the Election polls. If Bush is in such a spiral, then why hasn't Kerry taken a big lead? I think part of the answer is in this article:

    BY JAMES TARANTO

    Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:33 p.m. EDT

    Why Isn't Bush Losing?

    The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has lots of bad news for President Bush. His approval rating is down to 46%, the lowest ever; conventional wisdom has it that an incumbent with less than a majority is in trouble. Only 37% say they're "satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time," against 62% "dissatisfied." Fifty-six percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy, and 58% disapprove of the way he's handling Iraq. Fifty-four percent think liberating Iraq was a mistake.

    And yet. In a two-way presidential-preference match-up, Bush beats John Kerry, 48% to 47%--a slight (statistically insignificant) improvement from last week, when Kerry led 49% to 48%.

    What is one to make of this? Clearly all the bad news out of Iraq is having an unfavorable effect on people's impressions of President Bush. So why can't Kerry seem to get ahead of him? Here's our speculation:

    Bush's base is stronger. "Intensity of support among Bush voters is much stronger than support for Kerry," according to Investor's Business Daily. IBD's poll finds that "while 68% of Bush's supporters say they support him strongly, only 38% of Kerry's supporters say the same for him." (IBD's poll gives Bush a 47% to 44% lead in a two-man race.)


    Kerry is a weak candidate. IBD's 38% "strong support" number shouldn't be that surprising, given that voters in primaries consistently said they were supporting Kerry on the ground that he could beat Bush, not because of his own merits. But if Dems don't like Kerry, why should we expect anyone else will, especially when we hear things like this, from the Associated Press: "The Massachusetts senator also sought to dispel the notion he was aloof, asking one television interviewer: 'Have you had a beer with me yet? I like to have fun as much as the next person, and go out and hack around and have a good time.' "


    The Dems are overplaying their hand. Kerry responded to the Abu Ghraib revelations by calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as defense secretary. Few agree. Less than a third of Gallup's poll subjects think Rumsfeld should either quit (31%) or be fired (29%); more than 60% think he should stay in the job. Some of Kerry's fellow Democrats are saying even more outrageous things. Ted Kennedy: "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)

    We suspect Bush's current numbers in the mid-40s represent a solid base of supporters, and thus this number is a floor. Kerry's floor is probably a bit lower, since he isn't yet well-known, much less well-liked, and he could lose some anti-Bush or antiwar voters to Ralph Nader.

    That would seem to give Bush an advantage, though obviously one that Kerry could surmount. To do so, Kerry would have to convince a large number of independents and swing voters that (a) Bush is as incompetent as the Dems have been insisting for years, and (b) Kerry would do a better job.

    Will Kerry be able to do this? It's not unimaginable, but the peevishness of the e-mails we get from Kerry supporters leads us to think that he hasn't exactly inspired confidence in them.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005065