Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions

Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Top”

Karpinski, the highest-ranking officer demoted in connection with the torture scandal, speaks out about what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison. She discusses:

• How the military hid "ghost detainees" from the International Red Cross in violation of international law;
  
  
• Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller calling for the Gitmoization of Abu Ghraib and for prisoners to be "treated like dogs";
  
  
• Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's secret memos on interrogation policies that hung on the prison’s walls;
  
  
• The military’s use of private (and possibly Israeli) interrogators;
  
  
• Her dealings with the International Red Cross;
  
  
• Why she feels, as a female general, she has been scapegoated for a scandal that has left the military and political leadership unscathed; and
  Calls for Donald Rumsfeld, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Alberto Gonzalez and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller to be held accountable for what happened.

Abu Ghraib was one of 17 prison facilities that we were responsible for in Iraq. The units deployed from January throughout 2003 up ’til about April of 2003 to conduct a prisoner of war mission. The units are trained to do prisoner of war operations, and a prisoner of war camp was established in Iraq, very close to the Kuwait border. So, the units -- the unit members, the soldiers, all believed that they were going to come home after victory was declared on the First of May when the President arrived on the aircraft carrier. They allowed me to deploy to Iraq to join my units, to take command of the units, although I was told that the majority of the units, the soldiers, would be coming back home because the mission was complete.

About the situation at Abu Ghraib, I was first informed by an email that I received on classified – what they call “classified traffic.” I opened it up late one night on the 12th of January of 2004. And it was from the commander of the Criminal Investigation Division. He sent me an email and said, “Ma'am, I just want to make you aware, I'm going in to brief the C.G.,” meaning General Sanchez, “on the progress of the investigation at Abu Ghraib. This involves the allegations of abuse and the photographs.” That was the first I heard of it.

I did not receive that email or phone call or a message from General Sanchez himself, who would ultimately attempt to hold me fully responsible for this, but from the C.I.D. Commander. And I was alarmed at just that short email. I was not in Baghdad at the time. I was at another location very close to the Iranian border, so we made arrangements to leave at the crack of dawn to drive down to Abu Ghraib to see what we could find out about this ongoing investigation and went through the battalion over to Cell Block 1A. The people who would normally be working on any shift were not working. The sergeant that I spoke to said that their records had been seized by the investigators, and they started a new log to account for prisoners, make sure that their meals were on time, those kind of things, and he pointed out a memo that was posted on a column just outside of their small administrative office. And the memorandum was signed by the Secretary of Defense.

Source:
Democracy Now!

If you wish, you can listen to the entire Interview or read the entire transcript of the interview at the site named above.

Yet another Proof, that the Abuse and Torture of the Prisoners of War came from the TOP, straight from the Secretary of Defense - and that they were not actions of some lone individuals, which decided to take Law into their own hands.

It was Goverment APPROVED Torture.

Period.

She was the guest on Jon Stewart last night. Very informative interview. I have always thought she was the fall guy for that fiasco. That's the way things are done.

So, when I returned to Baghdad and saw these instructions, I went right to Colonel Warren, who was the legal adviser, and I said, “This is a violation.” And he said, “Well, we'll try to get clarification, but this is from Rumsfeld's office.” And I said, “It's a violation. You have to put people on the database. And how much longer are we going to be held responsible for him? You take control of him. If you want to violate a Geneva Convention, that's up to you, but I don't want to keep him in one of our camps this way.”

I wish more people involved in this mess of a war would stand up for their values like this woman did, providing they have any...

AMY GOODMAN: By Donald Rumsfeld.

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: By Donald Rumsfeld. And said – it discussed interrogation techniques that were authorized. It was one page. It talked about stress positions, noise and light discipline, the use of music, disrupting sleep patterns, those kind of techniques. But there was a handwritten note out to the side. And this was a copy. It was a photocopy of the original, I would imagine. But it was unusual that an interrogation memorandum would be posted inside of a detention cell block, because interrogations were not conducted in the cell block.

AMY GOODMAN: This was the command of Donald Rumsfeld himself?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talking about the techniques?

COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: The techniques that were allowed. And there was a note – handwritten note out to the side of where the list of tactics, interrogation tactics were. It said, "Make sure this happens." And it seemed to be in the same handwriting as the signature. That's what I could say about the memorandum.

dat dont really sound harsh aniways...not to mention many of those prisoners violated the Geneva conventions themselves for targeting civilians and committing horrific acts that does not follow the rules of the Geneva convention.



[edit on 28-10-2005 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by Souljah
Yet another Proof, that the Abuse and Torture of the Prisoners of War came from the TOP, straight from the Secretary of Defense - and that they were not actions of some lone individuals, which decided to take Law into their own hands.

It was Goverment APPROVED Torture.

Period.

How much of the CIA do you actually know about? Are you aware of specials groups of Interrogators with in the CIA that some people (including) the President might not be told about for the simple reason of "Plausible Deni-ability" (I think that is the correct term).

I for one have always known that this came down from the top, and was Secretary of Defense not a Director of the CIA?

Instead of bitching and complaining of where the orders came from why not ask yourselves WHY select Soldiers that were ORDERED to do this were the only ones to get jail time. That is what truly pisses me off, almost as much as to what happened.

I can almost guarantee that Israel had interrogators there since they are very good at doing that.

Ofcorse the Big Boss Generals are not going to pazy the price of this Scandal - the Scapegoats are always the Small People, that do what they are told to. What I find interesting is, that so many information comes out, saying that the Orders came straight from above, most probably the Rumsfeld-Chaney side, and that most possibly president Bush did not know about it, or was not Told about it. Or maye he ordered it. I dunno.

But this entire Gitmo Scandal is putting a very bad Light on the US and it is not helping to regain or increase the International Respect - especially among the Muslim side of the Population of this Planet, and they should not Piss them off, then they already are...

And the US will look Funny, when they say to the Chinese, to stop breaking International Laws and Conventions, when themselves are breaking it also...

Bottom line is: Torture will go on, we wont ever know about it, until the Goverment LEGALIZES it.

You must really be nuts (no pun intended, figure of speech) if you think that the senate or Congress would ever make Torture Legal.

Like i have said before in regards to Gitmo, IF we were to let those 26 (or so) protesters die of starvation than you and all the others would be all up in arms just like you are about them being forced to eat through a tube.

in some people's eyes around here the US could not win in many people's eyes.

Originally posted by BlackBeard
You must really be nuts (no pun intended, figure of speech) if you think that the senate or Congress would ever make Torture Legal.

Hmmmmmmm....

Wanna say that Again?

USA Admin Seeks To Exclude CIA From Detainee Torture laws

Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Top”

Nuremberg Trials 101: never except blame, simply assert that you were following orders.

Hence, the once General, now Colonel, Janis Karpinski claiming and asserting such.
The buck stopped with her.
How so?
She had a choice: either to obey and follow-thru with those orders or to not obey those orders and follow-thru. And as a senior command officer that she was, she knew that she had those choices available.






seekerof

Originally posted by Souljah

Hmmmmmmm....

Wanna say that Again?

USA Admin Seeks To Exclude CIA From Detainee Torture laws

The key word there is seek is it not? That leads me to believe that it is not legal yet correct?

I think you and some others are jumping the gun a bit IMO, and even if it does not pass we all know that some forms of torture will still be used unfortunately.

Originally posted by BlackBeard
The key word there is seek is it not? That leads me to believe that it is not legal yet correct?

And why do they "SEEK" it?

Is it NEEDED?

Are times that Hard, that they have to legalize Torture and Abuse?

No, it is not Legal, but the Idea of Making it legal is already showing the Nature of the Administration.

And the same people wanna Extend Death Penalty.

Way to go Democracy!

It really doesn't matter if she has admitted to breaking the laws of the Geneva Convention. Those laws do not apply to these civilian-dressed terrorists and enemy combatants. They do not fall under the laws of a uniformed army. This woman admitting she violated the Geneva Conventions with regards to Abu Ghraib detanees is like a deer hunter admitting he violated the Geneva Conventions when hunting deer.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
It really doesn't matter if she has admitted to breaking the laws of the Geneva Convention. Those laws do not apply to these civilian-dressed terrorists and enemy combatants. They do not fall under the laws of a uniformed army. This woman admitting she violated the Geneva Conventions with regards to Abu Ghraib detanees is like a deer hunter admitting he violated the Geneva Conventions when hunting deer.

I Understand your point of view. That is the recent problem with the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of POWs - and the Contraversial Article 5:

Art 5 apply all combatants, should any doubt arise as to whether persons is a lawful combatant they will be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Art. 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIII, because it forms, (along with parts of 4 Art. of the GCIV and Art 5. of the GCIV ,) the Administration of the USA's interpretation of unlawful combatants. The exact definition of "lawful combatant" has been subject to a number of discussions in view of a number of public military conflicts in the 2000s, including the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Because many of the people fighting are not members of the armed forces of a Party and do not have uniforms it is claimed that they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance" they are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention as "unlawful combatants".

en.wikipedia.org...

So - meaning that the majority of the prisoners of war, being held in Gitmo's are "unlawful combatants", to which the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The problem arises, when the Detaining power gets to choose, if these unlawful enemy combatants have the rights of Prisoners of War, as dscribed in the Third Geneva Convention, or not. But the Word "unlawful combatant" does NOT appear in the Third Geneva Convention. An unlwaful combatant is somebody who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify under GCIII, Articles 4 and 5:

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...
...
Article 5
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The main difference between lawful and unlawful combatants is, that lawful combatants cannot be held responsible for their acts, considering combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity - and when captures, they have to be treated as POW's. But if there is DOUBT, if the combatant is lawful or not, they must be held as POW's until their status is changed and determined by the competent tribunal, that he IS really an unlwaful combatant and then their status changes.

And that does NOT happen in Gitmos'...

Originally posted by BlackBeard

Originally posted by Souljah

Hmmmmmmm....

Wanna say that Again?

USA Admin Seeks To Exclude CIA From Detainee Torture laws

The key word there is seek is it not? That leads me to believe that it is not legal yet correct?

I think you and some others are jumping the gun a bit IMO, and even if it does not pass we all know that some forms of torture will still be used unfortunately.

The key word is not seek. Remember the original statement:

You must really be nuts (no pun intended, figure of speech) if you think that the senate or Congress would ever make Torture Legal.

Souljah countered with USA Admin Seeks To Exclude CIA From Detainee Torture laws.
Your assertion is still 100% correct, BlackBeard. That's why the three branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, work so well at keeping each other honest.


[edit on 30-10-2005 by jsobecky]

The Abu Ghraib Prisoner abuse case has become a pain in the @ss for Bushie's Administration and the Pentagon. I believe it's true that the orders for the torture and brutal punishment, in form of psychological, came from the top of the chain of command. Basically, it's easy to punish the ones who carry out the orders but to track the real perpetrators of the crime is always "impossible". Especially if it is at the top of the command.

I guess Bushie "approves the following message :"

It's ok to commit acts of terror in your own backyard just as long as nobody sees it.

In support to this thread, I'd like to ask Bushie Administration or his supporters to clarify the following :

1. Does he believe the Geneva Conventions apply to all those captured by U.S. authorities in Afghanistan and Iraq?

2. Does he support affording the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees in U.S. custody?

3. What rights under U.S. or international law do suspected members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or members of similar organizations have when brought into the care or custody of U.S. military, law enforcement, or intelligence forces?

4. Does he believe that torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment - such as dietary manipulation, forced nudity, prolonged solitary confinement, or threats of harm - may lawfully be used by U.S. authorities so long as the detainee is an "unlawful combatant" as he has defined it?

5. Does he believe that CIA and other government intelligence agencies are bound by the same laws and restrictions that constrain the operations of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in detention and interrogation operations abroad?

If you can't answer them, support the anti-war movement worldwide!

Souljah,
I looked up the convention many times and one question I want to ask you is this.

Who defines what a competant tribunal is?

The main difference between lawful and unlawful combatants is, that lawful combatants cannot be held responsible for their acts, considering combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity - and when captures, they have to be treated as POW's. But if there is DOUBT, if the combatant is lawful or not, they must be held as POW's until their status is changed and determined by the competent tribunal, that he IS really an unlwaful combatant and then their status changes.

If there is "doubt." There's no doubt in my mind. There's no doubt in the minds of the American government, who this decision ultimately lies in the hands of. These are terrorists. They are not lawful combatants. They are not soldiers of the armies of the former regime still waging war on the battlefield. Rather, they are civilian-dressed, bomb-planting, children-murdering TERRORISTS. And terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Furthermore, even if they were lawful combatants, their actions could certainly constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity- bombing civilians, decapitating journalists, etc. But what am I saying? Of course they're not lawful combatants! They don't belong to any recognized army. Nor are they signators to any of the Geneva Conventions. So long as they continue to act in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, then they certainly don't deserve consideration of its protection. Anyway, last I heard bin Laden doesn't ask our captured soldiers for "Name, Rank and Serial Number." He just has his thugs hit record on the video camera, rant on about the Prophet Mohammed and the glorious and peacefull Allah, and then without the ruling of a "competant tribunal" they are executed via decapitation.

And you spend your days trolling the boards of ATS demanding justice for these murderers??? I really like you Souljah... you've grown on me since I first started reading your propaganda. I know you have good intentions and that you are a good-hearted person. I just wish that you were more adept at recognizing who is good and who is evil, because you really do have things backwards.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If there is "doubt." There's no doubt in my mind. There's no doubt in the minds of the American government, who this decision ultimately lies in the hands of. These are terrorists. They are not lawful combatants. They are not soldiers of the armies of the former regime still waging war on the battlefield. Rather, they are civilian-dressed, bomb-planting, children-murdering TERRORISTS. And terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.

What about the terrorists in armani suits? The ones that have the money to fund the foot-solders? The ones that shake hands with intelligence agents and do a weapons-4-drugs or oil-4-food deals? When they give out orders, several children die - but that TERRORISM is not know to Westerns. They ignore it. The only terorism you know, is that an A-rab does. Everything else goes. But these terrorists, unlawful combatants, funny dressed bearded men with towels on their heads - these men are the REAL DANGER to the Free world. Apparently if your president uses the word "Terrorist" a certain number of times, the word gets engraved in your brain, and when something happens, everybody quickly answers: "Hey! - it was the Terrorists!"

What about Terrorist SUSPECTS? Do they have the rights of Geneva Convention? What if they were at the wrong place at the wrong time - completly innocent?

Furthermore, even if they were lawful combatants, their actions could certainly constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity- bombing civilians, decapitating journalists, etc. But what am I saying? Of course they're not lawful combatants! They don't belong to any recognized army. Nor are they signators to any of the Geneva Conventions. So long as they continue to act in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, then they certainly don't deserve consideration of its protection. Anyway, last I heard bin Laden doesn't ask our captured soldiers for "Name, Rank and Serial Number." He just has his thugs hit record on the video camera, rant on about the Prophet Mohammed and the glorious and peacefull Allah, and then without the ruling of a "competant tribunal" they are executed via decapitation.

So, you are Fighting Fire with Fire?

You think that will Help the current Situation?

Can't you see, that all these things that happen everyday are simply "Tailor Made" for the current US Goverment?

To put it simply, Hate just Breeds More Hate - and that quickly gets out of Control. Bottom line is, that while us two are debating this topic, there are few more dead civilans and few more dead soldiers. The bloodbath did not stop - it has only begun to show its true face. The disaster of Iraq is going to continue in Syria and Iran (as things are looking today). You think its SMART to open up new wounds, when the old one has not healed completly? Do you think its SMART to Anger the entire Muslim world, by invading all the countries in the Middle East that have Oil and want to charge a barrel of it in Euros? Again - the more countries US invade, the more people US soldiers kill - the harder will the Resistance get. Simple Mathematics.

You can kill the people, but you can not kill the Resistance of the people.

And you spend your days trolling the boards of ATS demanding justice for these murderers??? I really like you Souljah... you've grown on me since I first started reading your propaganda. I know you have good intentions and that you are a good-hearted person. I just wish that you were more adept at recognizing who is good and who is evil, because you really do have things backwards.

Trust me - I know who the Evil is in this Situation.

And its not the People defending their Land, their Homes and their Way of Life.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Souljah,
I looked up the convention many times and one question I want to ask you is this.

Who defines what a competant tribunal is?

Excellent Question.

And I think that the Tribunal has to have members with Civilan and Military background, to be Fair.

Originally posted by Souljah
Excellent Question.

And I think that the Tribunal has to have members with Civilan and Military background, to be Fair.

But, Civilians have no idea what happens in the field, yet again military wont always have the same idea of what happens at home because of them.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Souljah
Excellent Question.

And I think that the Tribunal has to have members with Civilan and Military background, to be Fair.

But, Civilians have no idea what happens in the field, yet again military wont always have the same idea of what happens at home because of them.

Check the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY):

Subject-matter :

The Tribunal’s authority is to prosecute and try four clusters of offences:

*Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
*Violations of the laws or customs of war.
*Crimes against humanity.

Objectives:

*to bring to justice persons allegedly responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law
*to render justice to the victims
*to deter further crimes

That's how the International Law works.

And when somebody Breaks it...

[edit on 2/11/05 by Souljah]