Steve Hendricks on the CIA's 'Kidnapping in Milan'

Steve Hendricks is the author of A Kidnapping in Milan, a new investigative book that looks into the CIA's rendition program from a historical perspective, with a special look at the 2003 kidnapping and rendition for torture of Abu Omar from the streets of Milan. This act was investigated by the Italian judicial system, and 23 U.S. operatives were convicted in 2009 of kidnapping and other crimes related to the event.

Scott Horton has a six-question interview with Mr. Hendricks. It's a fascinating exchange if you're interested in these matters. I reproduce just a part of it here.

About the rendition program in general, Hendricks says:

Before September 11, 2001, the CIA carried out at least seventy extraordinary renditions—the vast majority, it seems, under Clinton. We know very little about most of these renditions, but the fact of our knowing little suggests they were carried out with a degree of discretion and competence. Under George W. Bush, the quantity of renditions went up and the discretion and competence went down. At the very least Bush rendered several score victims, and more probably a couple hundred. His demands for renditions were so great that, for example, the CIA’s in-house air fleet didn’t have enough planes, so the agency had to lease torture taxis from outside the agency. The CIA also rented many of the renderers—the on-the-ground planners, the heavies who actually grabbed the victims, the in-flight medics, you name it. A lot of them were poorly trained. Then there was Bush’s brazen approach to covert action, which filtered down to the lowest level of the CIA. Even in the best of times, the CIA thinks it can get away with murder (sometimes literally), but under Bush the hubris reached heights not seen since the anything-goes Cold War days.

The Clinton point is worth noting. That fact of its invisibility is a mark of its "success" — in James Bond terms at least.

About Abu Omar as a worthwhile target, Hendricks says:

Abu Omar was almost certainly a terrorist but, as you say, of middling or even lowish rank and without imminent plans to attack. ... The most convincing theory to explain why the CIA snatched Abu Omar is that the agency’s chief of station in Italy, Jeff Castelli, wanted a promotion. After September 11, renditions were all the rage in the CIA. Station chiefs around the world were collecting scalps. Several Italians and Americans who worked with Castelli believe he convinced Langley to approve the rendition by exaggerating the threat Abu Omar posed and denigrating the Italians’ monitoring of him. Castelli had boosters at Langley who were grooming him for a higher post, and at least one or two of them were among those who weigh the merits of proposed renditions and approved or denied them.

He goes on to note that whatever else the CIA is, it's also a bureaucracy, with all that this implies. Imagine being tortured for years by third-world thugs because someone wanted a promotion. The banality of evil.

The interview covers other aspects of the case as well, including what motivated the charismatic chief prosecutor, Armando Spataro, and how much Berlusconi knew of the CIA mission before it was conducted. (If he knew ahead of time, he's arguably part of the conspiracy.)

The final question deals with Obama and the rendition program. One comment is worth quoting (my emphasis):

A lot of Americans think Obama ended it, but the program is alive and well. Obama did ban U.S. personnel from torturing captives, but, after some initial obfuscation, he said through subordinates that he intended to continue extraordinary renditions, which is to say to continue torture-by-proxy, which is to say to violate, as Bush did, the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory. In court Obama has argued, again just as Bush did, that lawsuits against the United States by victims of renditions must be dismissed because they jeopardize national security.

Never look back, right sir? Except when looking for models, of course.

GP Read More......

Blair warned about torture in early 2002

That would be the same Tony Blair who is a Middle East peace envoy. The Guardian:

Tony Blair was warned a matter of weeks after American forces began rounding up terror suspects that British nationals held by the US in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay were being tortured, secret documents disclosed in the high court reveal.

He expressed concern about their treatment after initially being sceptical, he admits in a hand-written note on a Foreign Office (FO) document dated 18 January 2002. It appears among heavily redacted MI5 and FO documents released in court hearings in which British nationals are suing the government, MI5 and MI6.

Read More......

US unable to document Abu Ghraib abuse payments

Maybe BPs oil spill payment team was on the job. What's the problem here?

Fending off demands that he resign over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in 2004 that he had found a legal way to compensate Iraqi detainees who suffered "grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the United States armed forces."

"It's the right thing to do," Rumsfeld said. "And it is my intention to see that we do."

Six years later, the U.S. Army is unable to document a single payment for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Read More......

Ninth Circuit fails in its duty to proscribe torture

Torture news followers know by now that the Ninth Circuit has upheld the Obama DOJ's request to short-cut a private lawsuit brought by five men who claim they were kidnapped, renditioned, and tortured — a suit brought against the private company ("a Boeing subsidiary", by the way) directly involved in his kidnapping and transportation.

The case is Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan and the winning argument was "state secrets." Incredibly, the DOJ requested, and got, the state secret prohibition placed on the entire lawsuit, not just specific testimony. (And keep in mind, it's a lawsuit, not a criminal case.)

From the L.A. Times on the use of "state secrets" in this case (h/t Scott Horton; my emphasis throughout):

The decision to short-circuit the trial process is more than a misreading of the law; it’s an egregious miscarriage of justice. That’s obvious from a perusal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. One said that while he was imprisoned in Egypt, electrodes were attached to his earlobes, nipples and genitals. A second, held in Morocco, said he was beaten, denied food and threatened with sexual torture and castration. A third claimed that his Moroccan captors broke his bones and cut him with a scalpel all over his body, and poured hot, stinging liquid into his open wounds.

So what's going on here? What secrets are being protected? Well, it's back to our old friend, international torture prosecutions. Horton:

The Holder Justice Department would have us believe that it is protecting state secrets essential to our security. That posture is risible, and half of the court saw through it. The dilemma faced by the Justice Department was rather that evidence presented in the suit would likely be used in the future (not in the United States, obviously) to prosecute those who participated in the extraordinary renditions process. Twenty-three U.S. agents have already been convicted for their role in a rendition in Milan. Prosecutors in Spain have issued arrest warrants for a further 13 U.S. agents involved in a botched rendition case that touched on Spanish soil. Prosecutors in Germany have opened a criminal investigation into the use of Ramstein AFB in connection with torture and illegal kidnappings. Prosecutors in Poland are pursuing a similar matter. And Prime Minister David Cameron was recently forced to brief President Obama on his decision to direct a formal inquiry which could lead to prosecutions tied directly to the subject matter of the Mohamed case. This is the remarkable background to the case decided by the Ninth Circuit, and remarkably not a single word about this appears anywhere in the opinion—or even in most of the press accounts about it.

Horton concludes: "The Ninth Circuit has made a liar out of Uncle Sam and a mockery of its duty to uphold the law proscribing torture."

As always, stay tuned. Drip, drip, drip.

GP Read More......

Ex-CIA officer, under DOJ investigation for torture, given 'lucrative training contracts'

That wordy headline says it all. Beneath the summary, these details:

1. The CIA officer is the guy who is accused of revving an electric drill and brandishing a handgun "near the head of an imprisoned terror suspect."

2. The location is a "secret CIA prison in Poland in late 2002 and early 2003, according to several former intelligence officials and a review by the CIA's inspector general."

3. The investigation is the seemingly endless one being performed by DOJ special prosecutor John Durham, many of whose torture investigations seem endless. Scott Horton (my emphasis):

So what has become of those whose involvement in torture was so troubling that even a government inspector general recommended a criminal investigation? While investigations proceed apace overseas, Special Prosecutor John Durham is apparently still considering whether the facts warrant a real one in the United States. Durham has now spent more than a year trying to make this “threshold” determination, something that prosecutors frequently do in an afternoon. In the meantime, the Obama Administration’s position seems to be that the accused should be rewarded for their dubious services with lucrative training contracts.

While the reward aspect is interesting (and has the effect of strengthening the ties to the "reservation" should the ex-officer ever be tempted to go off it), Horton advises us that the real action is the ties to Poland:

The desire to conceal the identities of the CIA agents has more to do with the fact that they face prosecution–not in the United States, but in Poland, on whose soil the crimes were committed. Indeed, the Polish National Prosecutor’s office would very much like to know the exact identity and whereabouts of “Albert,” his supervisor “Mike,” and other CIA personnel involved. The CIA black site where the torture incidents occurred is located at Stare Kiejkuty, in northeastern Poland[.]

Click for more to this interesting story. The embedded link to the Warsaw Business Journal is worth a look as well.

Drip, drip, drip. At some point, one of these cracks in the torture wall becomes a full-on break. Obama's DOJ seems now fully involved in the cover-up, even as likelihood of foreign prosecution increases.

We've now seen several cases — this one in Poland, the successful prosecution of U.S agents for kidnapping in Italy, the case against "torture lawyers" like John Yoo brought in Spain, and others.

I have a feeling that the first break will bring down the whole dam. Or to switch metaphors, this could go from zero to 60 in a nanosecond. Stay tuned; I sure will.

GP Read More......

64-year-old man, Tased three times at home, sues

From Digby, who is the queen of caring about this kind of legalized torture.

Our latest threat to humanity is a 64-year-old pancreatic cancer survivor with a heart condition, who fell on his front steps and badly hurt his leg. He's in pain, the paramedics treat him and start to leave.

Then in come the cops, like a house on fire. Let's go to the videotape:



Rules of engagement. Be sure to watch the video. It's the whole news report, just 3 minutes or so, and not just a torture flick.

Note that before being Tased*, the guy told them he was just letting off steam, and that his wife had warned the police of his heart condition. They still nailed him three times. I guess being fully incapacitated once isn't fully incapacitated enough.

Seriously. The Tasing* starts at about 2:25 on the tape. Watch it carefully. The first shot puts him on the floor, writhing. A pause. Then they shoot him again. A pause. Then they shoot him a third time. It's very deliberate.

Anyone want to guess how many cops were in the room?

GP

(*About that capital "T" on Tased and Tasing. I've decided to comply with the law. See, Taser is a trademark, like Kleenex, and must be capitalized; if writers like me start calling it "kleenex", the beast that owns the trademark loses intellectual property rights, and we wouldn't want that.

Besides, Taser International is a company, with a stock price and a huge financial interest in making sure everyone on the planet thinks Tasering is good safe fun, sort of a mash-up of police work and frat parties.

TASR stock was up around 30 for a while, but now it's down near 4, so the boys and girls at corp HQ have some work to do; those bonuses don't pay themselves, you know. And we want to recognize that work by recognizing the corporate actor behind this whole drama. And their lobbyists. And their lobbyists' friends.

And you thought this was a story about ... cops. Not at all.) Read More......

Terrorist tapes found under CIA desk

Look mom! Read More......

Weekend thoughts: Being the torturer

It used to be said of slavery that the master was a slave as well, to his need for slaves. In the same way, there are many victims of torture — and one of them is the torturer.

Sometimes the torturer is already cruel — with a childhood spent blowing up frogs, for example. But often the torturer is just a kid who joined the army, went through training, and got sent to hell. After a while, you do what others are doing, and what you're ordered to do. Then you go home — and deal with your memories and your guilt for the rest of your life, however long or short.

Over at Harpers, Scott Horton has a six-question interview with Joshua Phillips, author of a book on the subject, the appropriately named None of Us Were Like This Before: American Soldiers and Torture. From the Amazon book description: 'The legacy of torture in the “War on Terror,” told through the story of one tank battalion.'

A taste (my emphasis):

2. Much of your narrative focuses on two soldiers from the same unit, Adam Gray and Jonathan Millantz, both of whom died under tragic circumstances after returning home. What are the common strands of these two stories?

Gray and Millantz were very different people. Gray was planning to be career military; Millantz was a combat medic who left shortly after his tour in Iraq ended, and joined the anti-war movement. While both soldiers had other traumatic experiences during their combat tour in Iraq, they also admitted that their involvement with prisoner abuse deeply troubled them. Millantz told me he felt Gray was distraught over the abuse he had been involved in, and believed that it partly led to his tragic demise. Millantz was also haunted by his own history with prisoner abuse—not just because of what he saw and participated in, but because of his inability to stop it. He and his family considered that experience to have been especially traumatic for him, and it partly explains his involvement in the anti-war movement. I interviewed other whistle-blowers who were also distressed by their inability to effectively report prisoner abuse, and some felt they had been disregarded, even discarded, by the military they served.

Both Gray and Millantz had strikingly similar experiences when they returned home. Both had violent outbursts, were involved in serious substance abuse, and spiraled into depression. Their families said that the military medical care and VA systems did not provide them with adequate mental health treatment, and often substituted drug treatment for therapeutic care.

Gray and Millantz each committed suicide after returning home.

The interview ranges from checkpoint experiences, to the role of popular culture, to the way torture techniques "evolve" spontaneously at locations where prisoners are abused, as soldiers put into practice things they had heard of, seen elsewhere, or experienced during their own training. The six-question format makes a good tight read.

There are many ways we're torturing ourselves with these practices — from the damage done to the Constitution, to the damage to the so-called "healing" profession by military psychologists and contractors, to the trauma of the soldiers themselves, many just men and women looking for work, or looking genuinely to serve. Check out the interview, and if you like, check out the book as well.

GP Read More......

Arrest of 13 CIA agents sought in Spain

This is both breaking news and an ongoing story. From Scott Horton:

Prosecutors attached to the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid are reportedly requesting that Judge Ismael Moreno issue an order for the arrest of thirteen CIA agents involved in an extraordinary rendition operation from 2004, the newspaper El País reports this afternoon, citing sources within the court.

The case relates to Khaled El-Masri, a greengrocer from Neu-Ulm, Germany, seized by the United States as a result of mistaken identity while he was on vacation in the former Yugoslavia. El-Masri was placed on a CIA-chartered jet that arrived in Macedonia from Palma de Majorca in January 2004, en route ultimately to Afghanistan. It appears that Majorca was used regularly as a refueling and temporary sheltering point for the CIA, with the knowledge of the prior conservative government. While held in the notorious CIA prison known as the Salt Pit, El-Masri was apparently tortured during extensive interrogations before intelligence officers realized that they had seized the wrong man.

Read the rest — they tortured the wrong man and had to let him go. Horton's a go-to guy for these snatch-and-torture tales. From the same article:

The Spanish prosecutors have been closely studying the prosecution in Italy of 23 American agents in connection with another extraordinary rendition, involving an Egyptian cleric known as Abu Omar, who was seized off the streets of Milan and taken to Egypt, where he was tortured.

That's 36 agents all told. It won't be long, mark my word. At some point, someone's going to stand trial. Or worse, get snatched off the streets of Milan, or Boston . . . and then stand trial. This feels like a slow-motion nightmare.

GP Read More......

British judges: MI5 complicit in torture

So far, nobody is tripping over themselves in a Dick Cheney way to proudly defend torture though the Tories might be waiting until the election is over. The Guardian:

MI5 faced an unprecedented and damaging crisis tonight after one of the country's most senior judges found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.

The condemnation, by Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, was drafted shortly before the foreign secretary, David Miliband, lost his long legal battle to suppress a seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed.

Amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry into the affair, three of the country's most senior judges – Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Neuberger – disclosed evidence of MI5's complicity in Mohamed's torture and unlawful interrogation by the US.

Read More......

Sup Ct upholds Obama's refusal to release torture photos

Doesn't make it right. (NB In April, the White House had no problem with releasing the photos.) Read More......

Is using a Minotaur torture?

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture? Read More......

Townsend Admits CIA Documents Don’t Back Up Cheney’s Claims About Torture

Greg Sargent first reported the story. ThinkProgress and Spencer Ackerman have it, too. Read More......

Holder launches preliminary investigation into whether interrogation of detainees broke federal law

Att. Gen. Holder's statement is below, and here is Reuters' reporting.

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER REGARDING A PRELIMINARY REVIEW INTO THE INTERROGATION OF CERTAIN DETAINEES

“The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

“I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

“Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

“I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

Read More......

Cheney directed CIA to lie to Congress

This just keeps getting better. And so, those career employees at the CIA, who never ever get political, apparently got political. From the NYT:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Oh, and why did Panetta only learn of this program on June 23 of this year when he started as CIA director on February 13? (Hat tip, Grey Matter.) Read More......

AG Holder might appoint criminal prosecutor to investigate torture, but Obama's "top political aides have expressed concerns"

The Attorney General could be appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate torture allegations. Prosecutors don't appoint criminal prosecutors unless they believe crimes have been committed. And, it really does appear that crimes have been committed in the name of our government. That warrants an investigation, at the very least:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is leaning toward appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether CIA personnel tortured terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001, setting the stage for a conflict with administration officials who would prefer the issues remain in the past, according to three sources familiar with his thinking.

Naming a prosecutor to probe alleged abuses during the darkest period in the Bush era would run counter to President Obama's oft-repeated desire to be "looking forward and not backwards." Top political aides have expressed concern that such an investigation might spawn partisan debates that could overtake Obama's ambitious legislative agenda.

So, the AG must at least believe crimes have been committed and wants to investigate. But, "top political aides" are apparently objecting. This shouldn't be about politics. This is about the rule of law. That should preempt politics. We know craven political calculations came first in the Bush administration. We're supposed to be getting something different from the Obama administration. We'll see soon which prevails: craven politics or respect for the rule of law. Perhaps we can heed the words of Joe Biden from the the campaign, when asked about the possibility of prosecuting Bush officials over Guantanamo:

Mr Biden said at an event in Deerfield Beach, Florida: “If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president - no one is above the law."

No one is above the law. That's a good operating principle -- even for Dick Cheney. And, this investigation will probably implicate Cheney. Read More......

CIA Still Trying to Suppress Torture Evidence

As Barney Frank said below, we wouldn't want to be like the Bush administration. More from McJoan at DKos. (In all fairness to Barney, it's possible he hadn't read his own statement before he published it.) Read More......

London police in trouble again - water torture charges

What is happening with the Metropolitan Police? Maybe I was naive but I used to have an image of the London police as one of the more reputable forces in the world. Starting with the Ian Tomlinson/G20 problems - which were widespread - and now this, it looks like a force without leadership or proper oversight. The Guardian:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said it was investigating the conduct of officers based in Enfield, north London, during drugs raids in the borough last November.

Neither the IPCC nor Scotland Yard would comment on the nature of the ­allegations but sources said the officers were accused of pushing suspects' heads into buckets of water.

One IPCC document is said to use the word "waterboarding" – the CIA technique condemned as torture by Barack Obama – in connection with the allegations.

The torture claims are part of an ­investigation which also includes accusations that evidence was fabricated and suspects' property was stolen. It has already led to the abandonment of a drug trial, it was reported last night.

Read More......

Guantanamo detainee, held for seven years, describes the torture he endured. And, he is sure it was torture.

ABC News secured an interview with Lakhdar Boumediene, who was held in Guatanamo for over seven years. He was arrested in Bosnia in the weeks after September 11th and eventually handed over to the U.S. military. Boumediene won his case before the U.S. Supreme Court against the Bush administration and was freed by a federal judge. He talked to Jake Tapper (video of the interview here). The U.S. did torture:

Boumediene said the interrogations began within one week of his arrival at the facility in Cuba. But he thought that his cooperation, and trust in the United States, would serve him well and quicken his release.

"I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home," he said.

But instead, Boumediene said he endured harsh treatment for more than seven years. He said he was kept awake for 16 days straight, and physically abused repeatedly.

Asked if he thought he was tortured, Boumediene was unequivocal.

"I don't think. I'm sure," he said.

Boumediene described being pulled up from under his arms while sitting in a chair with his legs shackled, stretching him. He said that he was forced to run with the camp's guards and if he could not keep up, he was dragged, bloody and bruised.

He described what he called the "games" the guards would play after he began a hunger strike, putting his food IV up his nose and poking the hypodermic needle in the wrong part of his arm.

"You think that's not torture? What's this? What can you call this? Torture or what?" he said, indicating the scars he bears from tight shackles. "I'm an animal? I'm not a human?"

More confirmation of the very disturbing practice of torture at Guantanamo. That place has to be shut down. It's a symbol of everything that was wrong under the Bush/Cheney regime. V Read More......

Obama's banned Iraq photos allegedly show US soldier raping a female prisoner

Reuters:

The images are among photographs included in a 2004 report into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison conducted by U.S. Major General Antonio Taguba.

Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file....

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others are said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Obama:

"The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," the president said at a White House briefing.

Well, I for one am feeling a bit had. You'll recall that the GOP line of attack on the abuse photos previously was that they were indicative of nothing more than the equivalent of fraternity pranks. Well, I don't know what fraternity these boys went to, but US soldiers raping female prisoners goes far beyond a frat prank. Yes, we knew that they scared the prisoners with dogs and humiliated them by making them stand nude in front of women. (There was also that photo of the dead prisoner on ice...) I do not believe that we had any clue that prisoners were being raped as part of their interrogation. This most certainly adds something new, if only to silence those critics who claimed that this was just another day at the office.

I'd also add that this was not just the errant acts of a few soldiers. Torture was official US policy. And the Obama administration has already made clear that there is no benefit in holding accountable those who came up with this policy. So these photos shed quite a light on Obama's decision not to hold the intellectual fathers of these acts accountable. Read More......