Our very own Gulag...

[evenflow1121]

I am a liberal, or atleast I consider myself one, but not going to sit here and support a leftist organization for the sake of them being leftist. I would never consider Amnesty International a reliable source of anything. Amnesty International has its own agenda. I am sorry, I just dont see Amnesty International as involved in leftist run countries where human rights violations are just as severe as in right wing countries. Human Rights violations must supersede ideologies, I simply feel that Amnesty closes its eyes when the nation is run by a leftist government. Do I favor leftist governments? Of course I do, but human rights should be a universal concept that should transcend ideologies, and I do not feel that Amnesty does a good job at this.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am a liberal, or atleast I consider myself one, but not going to sit here and support a leftist organization for the sake of them being leftist. I would never consider Amnesty International a reliable source of anything. Amnesty International has its own agenda. I am sorry, I just dont see Amnesty International as involved in leftist run countries were human rights violations are just as severe as in right wing countries. Human Rights violations must supersede ideologies, I simply feel that Amnesty closes its eyes when the nation is run by a leftist government. Do I favor leftist governments? Of course I do, but human rights should be a universal concept that should transcend ideologies, and I do not feel that Amnesty does a good job at this.

On that we can agree. That's the problem i've had recently with AI. They'll on the one hand ignore human rights abuses by Castro, but attack US law enforcement with slanted claims and bogus evidence for reasonable arrest practices. A political agenda is very clear.

Or, perhaps it isn't quite so sinister, perhaps it's just laziness. Criticizing the excesses of a free society are FAR EASIER than penetrating a closed one. Perhaps they just picked the path of least resistance. Not too much danger in criticizing a free society.

 

[michaeledward]

How much of this do you know for a fact is going on? None, because just buy the very nature of that statement and the clandestine themes it implies, nobdy can possibly know how much (or even if ) this type of thing is actually happening. Its easy to make the accusation, but impossible to prove one way or the other.

Whether or not you assume it is happening and publisize it as such depends on your political motives and opinions on our government, nothing more.

There are currently, approximately, 540 people being detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Is there a list of the names, nationalities, and charges? Have their families been notified of their whereabouts? Have their countries been given access to the information regarding their detention? I'm pretty certain, we have extradition treaties with many of those countries (we've muscled the countries into those agreements against the International Criminal Court).

Of course, we can completely disregard the united states supreme courts' ruling that these detainees must have access to the federal court system. Damn Activist Judges (how many were appointed by Republicans?).

Anyhow ... here is an example of our government. Do you support this?

Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in Syria

Canadian's Case Called Typical of CIA



By DeNeen L. Brown and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 5, 2003; Page A01


TORONTO, Nov. 4 -- A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.

Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S. guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.




U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

Arar's case has brought repeated apologies from the Canadian government, which says it is investigating what information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave to U.S. authorities. Canada's foreign minister, Bill Graham, also said he would question the Syrian ambassador about Arar's statements about torture. In an interview on CBC Radio, Imad Moustafa, the Syrian chargé d'affaires in Washington, denied that Arar had been tortured.

Arar said U.S. officials apparently based the terrorism accusation on his connection to Abdullah Almalki, another Syrian-born Canadian. Almalki is being detained by Syrian authorities, although no charges against him have been reported. Arar said he knew Almalki only casually before his detention but encountered him at the Syrian prison where both were tortured.

Arar, whose case has become a cause celebre in Canada, demanded a public inquiry. "I am not a terrorist," he said. "I am not a member of al Qaeda. I have never been to Afghanistan."

He said he was flying home to Montreal via New York on Sept. 26, 2002, from a family visit to Tunisia.

"This is when my nightmare began," he said. "I was pulled aside by immigration and taken [away]. The police came and searched my bags. I asked to make a phone call and they would not let me." He said an FBI agent and a New York City police officer questioned him. "I was so scared," he said. "They told me I had no right to a lawyer because I was not an American citizen."

Arar said he was shackled, placed on a small jet and flown to Washington, where "a new team of people got on the plane" and took him to Amman, the capital of Jordan. Arar said U.S. officials handed him over to Jordanian authorities, who "blindfolded and chained me and put me in a van. . . . They made me bend my head down in the back seat. Then these men started beating me. Every time I tried to talk, they beat me."

Hours later, he said, he was taken to Syria and there he was forced to write that he had been to a training camp in Afghanistan. "They kept beating me, and I had to falsely confess," he said. "I was willing to confess to anything to stop the torture."

Arar said his prison cell "was like a grave, exactly like a grave. It had no light, it was three feet wide, it was six feet deep, it was seven feet high. . . . It had a metal door. There was a small opening in the ceiling. There were cats and rats up there, and from time to time, the cats peed through the opening into the cell."

Steven Watt, a human rights fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights in Washington, said Arar's case raised questions about U.S. counterterrorism measures. "Here we have the United States involved in the removal of somebody to a country where it knows persons in custody of security agents are tortured," Watt said. "The U.S. was possibly benefiting from the fruits of that torture. I ask the question: Why wasn't he removed to Canada?"

A senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the case in terms of the secret rendition policy. There have been "a lot of rendition activities" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the official said. "We are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive."

Renditions are a legitimate option for dealing with suspected terrorists, intelligence officials argue. The U.S. government officially rejects the assertion that it knowingly sends suspects abroad to be tortured, but officials admit they sometimes do that. "The temptation is to have these folks in other hands because they have different standards," one official said. "Someone might be able to get information we can't from detainees," said another.

Syria, where use of torture during imprisonment has been documented by the State Department, maintains a secret but growing intelligence relationship with the CIA, according to intelligence experts.

"The Syrian government has provided some very useful assistance on al Qaeda in the past," said Cofer Black, former director of counterterrorism at the CIA who is now the counterterrorism coordinator at the State Department.

One senior intelligence official said Tuesday that Arar is still believed to have connections to al Qaeda. The Justice Department did not have enough evidence to detain him when he landed in the United States, the official said, and "the CIA doesn't keep people in this country."

With those limitations, and with a secret presidential "finding" authorizing the CIA to place suspects in foreign hands without due process, Arar may have been one of the people whisked overseas by the CIA.

In the early 1990s, renditions were exclusively law enforcement operations in which suspects were snatched by covert CIA or FBI teams and brought to the United States for trial or questioning. But CIA teams, working with foreign intelligence services, now capture suspected terrorists in one country and render them to another, often after U.S. interrogators have tried to gain information from them.

Renditions are considered a covert action. Congress, which oversees the CIA, knows of only the broad authority to carry out renditions but is not informed about individual cases, according to intelligence officials.Priest reported from Washington. Staff writers John Mintz and Glenn Kessler in Washington contributed to this report.

Let's continue.... Questions from sgtmac_46 ... whom I should not respond to after our last exchange, but as he asks serious questions ...

A) How many enemy terrorists should we allow to run free to appease your bizarre set of imaginary rules? I guess you'd prefer we just opened the gate and allowed all those Al Queda operatives and former Taliban to just leave?



B) Who is going to be responsible for them? Are you going personally vouche for them?

C) If we DO allow those people to run free, at what point will WE be responsible when they kill more US citizens?

A - Any enemy (or friendly) terrorist should absolutely be allowed to run free. Right up to the point where they break a law. As soon as the conspiracy is put in place, then law enforcement should have appropriate tools to bring charges before a grand jury, leading to warrants for arrest, trial, and if convicted, enprisonment.



B - As with any 'Free' society, they (friendly terrorists - as well as enemy terrorists) are responsible for themselves. Our 'Free' society is said to be a 'Nation of Laws'. If someone choose to break a law, by planning or committing an act of terrorism, our system of jurisprudence demands penalties be paid by the offender. We do not visit the sins of the father on the son, in our enlightenment.

C - Because we, in our enlightenment, do not visit the sins of the father on the son, WE will never be responsible for what they do.

If, however, we bomb the stone-aged Afghanistan back to the paleolithic age, because 15 Saudi citizens committed the crime of hi-jacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, we are responsible for what happens in Afghanistan.

So you're suggesting that he was "only a cab driver" because a real terrorist would have surely listed his job title as "terrorist" and not "taxi driver"? If only they were that honest. Actually, taxi driver is about as good a cover for a terrorist as there is, it affords plenty of freedom of movement, gives you a reason to drive a car around with lots of different people in it, and gives you "deniability" (at least that's what i'm sure he thought)

So, let's see if I can follow this logic. The military picks up a person in Iraq. They state they are a 'taxi driver'. They were driving a 'taxi' when we picked them up. But, because he was picked up in Iraq, he must be lying. This type of thinking certainly encourages dropping a few dozen thermonuclear devices on the country - kill all people - because they are all just terrorists, with day jobs.

I gave you a list of the rules, and you haven't shown me where we are violating them. You keep referring to vague "rules" but you've yet to list those rules. Sounds like these rules may only exist in the heads of those claiming we are "violating" them.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

[sgtmac_46]

There are currently, approximately, 540 people being detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Is there a list of the names, nationalities, and charges? Have their families been notified of their whereabouts? Have their countries been given access to the information regarding their detention? I'm pretty certain, we have extradition treaties with many of those countries (we've muscled the countries into those agreements against the International Criminal Court).

Of course, we can completely disregard the united states supreme courts' ruling that these detainees must have access to the federal court system. Damn Activist Judges (how many were appointed by Republicans?).

Anyhow ... here is an example of our government. Do you support this?

Let's continue.... Questions from sgtmac_46 ... whom I should not respond to after our last exchange, but as he asks serious questions ...


A - Any enemy (or friendly) terrorist should absolutely be allowed to run free. Right up to the point where they break a law. As soon as the conspiracy is put in place, then law enforcement should have appropriate tools to bring charges before a grand jury, leading to warrants for arrest, trial, and if convicted, enprisonment.



B - As with any 'Free' society, they (friendly terrorists - as well as enemy terrorists) are responsible for themselves. Our 'Free' society is said to be a 'Nation of Laws'. If someone choose to break a law, by planning or committing an act of terrorism, our system of jurisprudence demands penalties be paid by the offender. We do not visit the sins of the father on the son, in our enlightenment.

C - Because we, in our enlightenment, do not visit the sins of the father on the son, WE will never be responsible for what they do.

If, however, we bomb the stone-aged Afghanistan back to the paleolithic age, because 15 Saudi citizens committed the crime of hi-jacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, we are responsible for what happens in Afghanistan.


So, let's see if I can follow this logic. The military picks up a person in Iraq. They state they are a 'taxi driver'. They were driving a 'taxi' when we picked them up. But, because he was picked up in Iraq, he must be lying. This type of thinking certainly encourages dropping a few dozen thermonuclear devices on the country - kill all people - because they are all just terrorists, with day jobs.




http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Thank you for making your motives clear. Only a true idealogue would place the freedom of foreign terrorists above our national security and the safety of American citizens. Moreover, it shows just how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation. These were active members of Al Queda and the Taliban, and they will be held (with no real protest from the American people) until they can be properly dealt with. The fortunate thing for us as a society is that only a few idealogues even really care, and they are frustrated by their absolute inability to make the average American give a damn. The tide is against you, my friend. If it makes you feel less guilty, though, keep on keeping on.

"So, let's see if I can follow this logic. The military picks up a person in Iraq. They state they are a 'taxi driver'. They were driving a 'taxi' when we picked them up. But, because he was picked up in Iraq, he must be lying. This type of thinking certainly encourages dropping a few dozen thermonuclear devices on the country - kill all people - because they are all just terrorists, with day jobs. "

Wow, that's quite a leap. Don't think you might be trying to build a little strawman to fight there, do ya'? "Thermonuclear devices" indeed. Try again. Fact is, he was accused of engaging in terrorist activity. Further, he 'claimed' to be a cab driver, and the truth is, neither of us know, so your assertion that he WAS "only" a cabdriver has no more validity that the fact that you got it off of a website that you happen to like. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to US forces, as A) Terrorists DO have an interest in committing terrorist activities AND a cab driver is good cover and B) The US military has NO interest in picking up people who have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING but driving a cab, the idea is asinine and is a waste of resources. If he was picked up, I place more credibility on the military than him. Sadly, you place more credibility on the word of terrorists, but, Whatever.

 

[ginshun]

Michael, just the fact that you believe in the concept of a "friendly terrorist" doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your post.


Not in my eyes at least.


WTF is a "friendly terrorist"?

 

[Ray]

How about the persistent reports that Republicans kick puppies and take candy from children? I think we should all be very upset about that.

As a Republican I can easily deny that allegation...even if you have a fabricated video tape from Michael Moore as evidence. We kick full grown dogs, not puppies...

It's the Democrats that take the candy from the affluent children and give it to the children who cannot afford candy. I say, if a person can afford to buy his children candy {because of his hard work and persistence} then those children should be able to keep it.

 

[michaeledward]

WTF is a "friendly terrorist"?

Lyndie England?

How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?

How 'bout the Jordanians, who did the dirty work for us?

How 'bout the prison guards in Paramus, NJ, who, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, used attack dogs on immigration prisoners?

How 'bout Alberto Gonzalez, who, convienently, re-defined what 'torture' is, so that it could more easily be perpetrated, and then deny that it was torture at all. And for this piece of legal legerdomain, he gets promoted to Attorney General. Not Bad.

 

[michaeledward]

Only a true idealogue would place the freedom of foreign terrorists above our national security and the safety of American citizens.

Well, I would place your freedom above our 'National Security' too. Don't know if that's any consolation or not.

By the way, I would not place a terrorists' freedom above anything, if there is evidence he is a terrorist ... by why be bothered with rules of evidence (oops, there's them rules again).

So, I think somewhere back there, you said you would address my question, when I answered yours ...

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

... waiting ? ? ?

 

[ginshun]

Lyndie England?

How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?

How 'bout the Jordanians, who did the dirty work for us?

How 'bout the prison guards in Paramus, NJ, who, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, used attack dogs on immigration prisoners?

How 'bout Alberto Gonzalez, who, convienently, re-defined what 'torture' is, so that it could more easily be perpetrated, and then deny that it was torture at all. And for this piece of legal legerdomain, he gets promoted to Attorney General. Not Bad.

None of those people, while obviously not the poster children for their respective careers, are terrorists. I suppose your deffinition of a terrorist is just a bit more liberal than the average person's. Whatever.

 

[drdoolittle]

Just because you label someone a terrorist, doesn't make them one, no matter how many times you announce their pre-determined guilt. If we subvert our own justice system for expediency's sake, then we have already lost the war, and are in the process of becoming what the terrorists accuse us of.

Maybe survival at all costs is ok with some people...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lyndie England?

Lyndie is going to prison, by the way. Are you in favor of freeing her like the terrorists you like so much? I'm not. Why are leftists always trying to bring up Lyndie (Who's going to prison) or Timothy McVeigh (Who we already executed) as some sort of false point? We deal with our own criminals and terrorists, too.

How 'bout those CIA goons that handed the Canadian, Mr. Arar, over to the Jordanians?

It was Syria, by the way.

How 'bout the Jordanians, who did the dirty work for us?

Again, how about that. We didn't do it, they did, and Syria certainly doesn't do anything "For US"

How 'bout the prison guards in Paramus, NJ, who, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, used attack dogs on immigration prisoners?

Really, used them to do what?

How 'bout Alberto Gonzalez, who, convienently, re-defined what 'torture' is, so that it could more easily be perpetrated, and then deny that it was torture at all. And for this piece of legal legerdomain, he gets promoted to Attorney General. Not Bad.

I'm only concerned if it works or not, not how pallatable it is. If we get good intel that saves American lives, then so be it. I took an oath to defend ONE document, the Constitution of the United States of America. That document guarantees rights to US citizens. You have not shown me one line of that document that has been violated. Sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities, but we do what we have to do, and if that saves American lives, so be it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, I would place your freedom above our 'National Security' too. Don't know if that's any consolation or not.

By the way, I would not place a terrorists' freedom above anything, if there is evidence he is a terrorist ... by why be bothered with rules of evidence (oops, there's them rules again).

So, I think somewhere back there, you said you would address my question, when I answered yours ...


... waiting ? ? ?
[/i]

The safety of society above my own safety all the time, how about you? My wife and my children have to live here, and if that means that I have to be in danger for them to be safe, then so be it. If it also means that a bunch of terrorists have to live in cages in Cuba to make them (and you) safe, so be it. Aggressive responses to terrorists protects my freedom. The method you suggest would actually curtail my freedom. If it's a choice of my freedom, or theirs, sorry for them. You're welcome.

As for rules of evidence, these folks do not have the right to a jury trial under the US constitution, i'm still waiting for you to show me where, in the US Constitution they are. I've already addressed your questions, you're making nothing but continued, unsupported, suppositions, and you have ZERO facts to back them.

Finally, and most importantly, America still doesn't give a damn. If all you're going for is a warm, fuzzy feeling about how morally superior you are on this topic, then enjoy the warmness, because in the end it accounts for nothing. That's the reality of the situation you're in on this topic. We know those folks are Al Queda and Taliban because the vast majority of them were picked up in armed struggle with US troops. There is no doubt in any rational persons mind that if they were free, they would continue terrorists campaigns against the US. It is only the idealogues who live in a little box called "academia" who actually believe that their idealogical spin on the world is the end all and be all of reality, who think letting these folks loose is any sort of GOOD thing.

Just because you label someone a terrorist, doesn't make them one, no matter how many times you announce their pre-determined guilt. If we subvert our own justice system for expediency's sake, then we have already lost the war, and are in the process of becoming what the terrorists accuse us of.

Maybe survival at all costs is ok with some people...

We have not subverted our own legal system. The idea that that is the case, is merely smoke and mirrors legal fear mongering. Not one single US citizen is being held under these conditions, and I am still waiting for someone to show me in the single, overriding legal document, the US Consitution, where this is the case. I've read it, and I can't find any protections for foreign nationals engaged in terrorists attacks on the US, OUTSIDE of the borders of the US, being protected by the US Constitution. At the point at which ANY US citizen loses his rights, even if they're obviously guilty, i'll join Amnesty International and the ACLU and join your cause against the administration. But I don't think they're wrong so far.

Until then, foreign terrorists will just have to live in Cuba. But hey, all my leftists friends say Cuba is a workers paradise, so it shouldn't be that bad.

 

[michaeledward]

so many errors, so little time ...... here's one.

As for rules of evidence, these folks do not have the right to a jury trial under the US constitution, i'm still waiting for you to show me where, in the US Constitution they are.

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm

Law Watch - Detainees
Supreme Court Guantanamo Decision

Steven C. Welsh, Esq.

CDI Research Analyst

June 30, 2004

With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.

I will leave interpretting the Constitution to the experts ... like the Supreme Court. (Maybe they live in a place called 'academia')

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, and ... sgtmac_46

So, I think somewhere back there, you said you would address my question, when I answered yours ...

... waiting ? ? ?

Let me review the question for you, because you still don't seem to be answering it.....

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

I've placed in bold font the noun 'people', because you seem to be confusing this word with 'terrorist'. Currently, we have over 500 people in Guantanamo. You keep claiming they are terrorists because they were taken into custody in some foreign country, yet no terrorist charges have been filed (see Supreme Court ruling above) ...

And then there is Mr. Arar - who was not taken into custody on 'foreign soil', participating in actions against the united states, while you corrected me, you say nothing about the actions of your country, and go so far as to posit the torturers your country rendered Mr. Arar too are somehow, not 'friendly' to the CIA.

Was Mr. Arar a 'terrorist'? or was he a 'people'? How many more Mr. Arar's may be out there, about which we have no information?

Again ...

How many people can we abduct, move to an undisclosed location, hold incommunicado, with no criminal charges before it becomes wrong?

You said you would answer my question, if I addressed your three questions. I have. I'm waiting.

 

[sgtmac_46]

so many errors, so little time ...... here's one.

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm

I will leave interpretting the Constitution to the experts ... like the Supreme Court. (Maybe they live in a place called 'academia')

Still waiting for you to cite the section of the US Consitution governing these rights. Oh, and I already answered your question...As many as is necessary. You haven't pointed out any "errors", as you haven't shown me the relavent section of the US Constitution. I'll be waiting.

 

[michaeledward]

Still waiting for you to cite the section of the US Consitution governing these rights. Oh, and I already answered your question...As many as is necessary. You haven't pointed out any "errors", as you haven't shown me the relavent section of the US Constitution. I'll be waiting.

The Constitution uses the word 'citizen' and it also uses the word 'person'. If those two words were synonymous, there would be no reason to use two words.

Obviously, we are differening in the opinion of the function of the Constitution; is it a living breathing document that evolves with the nation, or is it set in stone for once and all time, meaning only what it says and nothing more.

It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has granted, under the Constitution, rights to persons within the boundaries of our country (which is why the detainees are being held, without charge, outside the geographic boundaries of the united states). It appears to be your opinion that the Supreme Court is making laws up. As it is the role of the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution actually means, I guess I see them as the 'highest authority' on the subject.

Seems that you casually disregard the opinions of the united states supreme court. Damn activist life long appointed judges.

Who needs checks and balances anyhow.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The Constitution uses the word 'citizen' and it also uses the word 'person'. If those two words were synonymous, there would be no reason to use two words.

Obviously, we are differening in the opinion of the function of the Constitution; is it a living breathing document that evolves with the nation, or is it set in stone for once and all time, meaning only what it says and nothing more.

It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has granted, under the Constitution, rights to persons within the boundaries of our country (which is why the detainees are being held, without charge, outside the geographic boundaries of the united states). It appears to be your opinion that the Supreme Court is making laws up. As it is the role of the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution actually means, I guess I see them as the 'highest authority' on the subject.

Seems that you casually disregard the opinions of the united states supreme court. Damn activist life long appointed judges.

Who needs checks and balances anyhow.

If you keep spinning like that, you'll get dizzy and fall down. Section please.

 

[evenflow1121]

The only thing held in that case was that the United States District Courts do not lack jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus challenge as to the status and charges of the detainee. How this is going to work is beyond me, considering they are being held in Guantanamo, Cuba it seems this will open up the doors for forum shopping in this issue, the court did not go far enough with this opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

This just in ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_suffocation_case

Soldier Said to Witness Prison Beatings


A National Guardsman testifying at a hearing for U.S. soldiers accused of killing an Iraq general said he saw classified U.S. personnel beat prisoners with a sledgehammer handle and mock the general's death, according to a transcript.

The transcript, obtained by The Denver Post, includes an exchange during the hearing that suggests the CIA was involved.

Sgt. 1st Class Gerold Pratt of the Utah National Guard said he saw unidentified U.S. personnel use the 15-inch wooden handle to hit prisoners.

"They'd ask you a question, and if they didn't like it, they'd hit you," he said, according to the transcript obtained this week by the Post under a court order. Pratt testified at the hearing in March.

The hearing will determine whether three soldiers from Fort Carson will stand trial for the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation in 2003.

The soldiers have denied wrongdoing and say commanders sanctioned their actions.

Most identifying information in the transcript was redacted, but one exchange suggests CIA involvement. "To your knowledge, SFC Sommer did not accompany any of these CIA folks?" defense attorney Capt. Michael Melito asked Pratt.

A CIA spokeswoman who declined to give the Post her name would not comment.

Pratt — who had run logistics at the detention facility near Qaim, a city in Iraq's western desert — said he recalled an official mocking the prisoners he was beating.

"Well, particularly after the general was killed. I don't remember the exact words, but he was mocking the fact that the general died," Pratt testified.

The Army said Mowhoush died of asphyxiation from chest compression. Documents in the case said he was killed with an electrical cord, and a Pentagon investigation reportedly says a soldier sat on Mowhoush as he was restrained headfirst inside a sleeping bag.

Previous testimony indicated the Iraqi general's body was badly bruised and he may have been severely beaten two days before he was suffocated.

Charged with murder are Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, Spec. Jerry Loper and Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who was not part of the hearing. Final charges are pending against the fourth accused soldier, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer.

The hearing officer has forwarded the case report, and Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Mixon, will make the final decision on whether the soldiers will be court-martialed.

The soldiers could get life in prison without parole if they are convicted of murder.

Williams' attorney, William Cassara, said he was sure other officials were involved in prisoner abuse.

"I have no doubts that other government agencies used methods of interrogation that were much worse," Cassara said.

​

 

[Tgace]

Most Gulags dont charge or convict their guards.