Four US soldiers face Abu Ghraib torture hearings
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.America will again be forced to confront the torture of Iraqi prisoners this week when preliminary proceedings begin against four US soldiers at the centre of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.
America will again be forced to confront the torture of Iraqi prisoners this week when preliminary proceedings begin against four US soldiers at the centre of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.
Hearings against Charles Graner, Ivan "Chip" Frederick and Javal Davis will take place at the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad, headquarters of the US authority in Iraq. A fourth case will open at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, against Lynndie England, the army reservist pictured in some of the most notorious abuse photographs.
The so-called Section 32 hearings - instigated by the commanding officer of a soldier's unit to determine whether to recommend a full court martial - come amid a growing weight of evidence suggesting that the coercive interrogation of prisoners in US custody was approved at senior levels of the Bush administration.
Recently leaked memos suggest that rather than being isolated episodes, the abuse at Abu Ghraib may be the result of a deliberate "gloves-off" approach in the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks when pressure increased to obtain "actionable" intelligence against suspected extremists.
Among those internal documents is a January 2002 Justice Department memo arguing that US officials could not be charged with war crimes for the abuse of prisoners because the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees held in the war in Afghanistan. The same department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo in August 2002 which concluded that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman or degrading, yet not produce suffering of the requisite intensity to constitute torture as defined by international treaties and US law.
Another document, written in March 2003 by the Department of Defense, argued that President Bush was not bound by international or US laws banning torture. It said individuals could not be prosecuted for carrying out such activities if they had been ordered by the President.
This weekend it was revealed that the officer who oversaw interrogation at Abu Ghraib believed he was under "intense pressure" to get intelligence from Iraqi prisoners. Sworn testimony from Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, obtained by USA Today newspaper, details how he was told White House officials wanted to "pull the intelligence" out of detainees.
"[There were] instances where I felt there was additional pressure to get information," he said. He was urged to improve the intelligence output "many, many, many times". On one occasion, an official working for the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, discussed the detainees issue with him.
The Bush administration is refusing to release thememos - making it more difficult to assess precisely how far up the chain of command responsibility for the abuse may lie.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments