The USA believes in torture?

From other AP news articles on this:

CIA was involved.

During the trial, prosecutors described a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques from simple interviews to beatings to simulating drowning, and finally, to death. An Army interrogator committed negligent homicide when he put a sleeping bag over an Iraqi general's head and sat on his chest as the man suffocated, a military jury found. Attorneys for Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. said he believed the general had information that would "break the back of the whole insurgency" at a time when soldiers were being killed in an increasingly lethal and bold resistance. But prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan maintained that Welshofer tortured Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush at a detention camp in 2003, treating him "worse than you would treat a dog."

Now this article comes out:

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SUFFOCATION?SITE=PAPOT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-24-06-56-29

Jury Orders Reprimand, No Jail for Soldier

By JON SARCHE
Associated Press Writer

FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) -- A military jury has recommended that an officer once facing up to life in prison for the interrogation death of an Iraqi general be given only a reprimand, a decision that drew applause from soldiers.

Initially charged with murder, Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. now faces no jail time, the forfeiture of $6,000 in salary and what amounts largely to a barracks restriction for 60 days.

"I deeply apologize if my actions tarnished the soldiers serving in Iraq," Welshofer said during his sentencing hearing. "It was never my intent to cast aspersions on their tremendous accomplishments."

Welshofer was convicted Saturday of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty for stuffing the Iraqi general headfirst into a sleeping bag and sitting on his chest.
 
The sentence will be reviewed by Fort Carson's commander, Maj. Gen. Robert W. Mixon. He cannot order a harsher sentence, said Welshofer's defense attorney Frank Spinner.

Prosecutors had described Welshofer as a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques from simple interviews to beatings to simulating drowning, and finally, to death.

The defense argued that a heart condition caused Mowhoush's 2003 death, and that Welshofer's commanders had approved the interrogation technique. Spinner also argued that interrogators were under pressure to extract information from detainees and to find a way to replace techniques that hadn't been working.

"It's one more of a string of messages going to the Pentagon," Spinner said. "When you send our men and women over there to fight, and to put their lives on the line, you've got to back them up, you've got to give them clear rules, and you've got to give them enough room to make mistakes without treating them like criminals."
 
David Danzig, spokesman for New York-based Human Rights First, said he was shocked by what the thought was a too-lenient sentence.

"My concern is that it suggests the United States doesn't take these kinds of issues seriously. There's no indication anything more will be done to account for the death of this detainee who was in U.S. custody."

I really thought this guy would get some hard time.

Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time.

Unbelievable he didn't.

I think the sentence sends the proper message to the pigs our men are fighting.

Quoted: Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time. Unbelievable he didn't.

agreed

I contrast this with the punishment others have recieved for making detainees wear underwear on their heads and it makes even less sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time. Unbelievable he didn't. agreed I contrast this with the punishment others have recieved for making detainees wear underwear on their heads and it makes even less sense.

Yup. Lindie England and Co. had their lives ruined for a lot less.

good 4 him...

Who really knows what his superiors knew, other than all of the parties directly involved. As in everything you will only hear the side of a story that the "suspect" wants you to hear. As unfortunate as it is for a prisoner to die in custody, if it saved just one Coalition life, HOOAH! I can ensure you that, I spent some time in the 'Stan in late 2001 with a MEU and if media was as prevalent there as it is in the sandbox, there would be alot more issues!!! But we follow the Geneva Convention, mostly, but the bad guys dont give a damn, and they cut your head off and Al Jazerra televises it. So...boo hoo for the general, and CONGRATS CHIEF!!!!

hug.gif

I've sat in on and observed a few court martial proceedings while I was in the military and the one realization that I came away with was that the panel or jury take their jobs very seriously.  They are military members themselves and are not there to "rubber stamp" or railroad some poor shmoe because they were told to.  On the flip side, they also don't take kindly to dirtbags who soil or bring embarrasment to "their" Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine corps (depending on which service they belong to).

As such, I have to trust that the system is working and that the verdict was arrived at in a fair manner.

"It's one more of a string of messages going to the Pentagon," Spinner said. "When you send our men and women over there to fight, and to put their lives on the line, you've got to back them up, you've got to give them clear rules, and you've got to give them enough room to make mistakes without treating them like criminals."

+1
Our boys need to know what the rules are so they know what they can and can't do, instead of thinking that they are doing something that is ok, and winding up in front of a judge.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time. Unbelievable he didn't. agreed I contrast this with the punishment others have recieved for making detainees wear underwear on their heads and it makes even less sense. Yup. Lindie England and Co. had their lives ruined for a lot less.

   * Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
   * Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
   * Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.
   * Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[20]
   * Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.
   * Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.
   * Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.

this guy killed a prisoner and gets off with a reprimand?  WTF

Compare his sentence with Megan Ambuhl's  who was charged for being on the same shift as the other defendants and whose main crime was not reporting it to the COC.

Was he an officer?

Sorry I see a warrant....close enough for the panel I guess...

Oh boo hoo.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time. Unbelievable he didn't. agreed I contrast this with the punishment others have recieved for making detainees wear underwear on their heads and it makes even less sense. Yup. Lindie England and Co. had their lives ruined for a lot less.    * Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.    * Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.    * Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.    * Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[20]    * Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.    * Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.    * Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge. this guy killed a prisoner and gets off with a reprimand?  WTF One guy was doing it for a legitimate reason, he was an interogator and was trying to get information. The fuck nuts at Abu-G  did it for shits and grins.  Then they took pictures which were released and have caused 1000 times more damage than this one interogator. Different motivations, different punishments. Suprised at no jail, but I am not losing sleep over a dead bathist general.

let me get this straight, you are saying that because he didn't release pictures of himself killing the general, that makes it less disgusting than some homoerotic photos a bunch of enlisted pukes took?

So if this had never made the light of day and no charges had been filed that would be ok too?

He killed the man during an intense physical interrogation that would fit the definition of torture for almost anyone.    No member of the armed forces can be ordered to torture a human being.   It is an illegal order and should not be obeyed.

Officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard than specialists.  Its the way the military works.  Or at least it did 10 years ago.

This is fuel for the propoganda machines of the insurgents and terrorists.  

Quoted: let me get this straight, you are saying that because he didn't release pictures of himself killing the general, that makes it less disgusting than some homoerotic photos a bunch of enlisted pukes took? So if this had never made the light of day and no charges had been filed that would be ok too? He killed the man during an intense physical interrogation that would fit the definition of torture for almost anyone.    No member of the armed forces can be ordered to torture a human being.   It is an illegal order and should not be obeyed. Officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard than specialists.  Its the way the military works.  Or at least it did 10 years ago. This is fuel for the propoganda machines of the insurgents and terrorists.

If it happens to go on in the midst of a war without official sanction.... so be it.

Quoted: 1.  He was a warrant, slightly different animal.

Yes, a warrant has no excuse for not knowing better.   A brand new enswine or first lt might not know an better (I don't see how, but it is possible)

Quoted: 1.  He was a warrant, slightly different animal. 2.  The interrogation technicque was approved by his commander. 3.  He had no intent to kill or cause harm to the person, merely scare them.  That is what interogation is. 4.  If the general had a heart condition, shit happens.  He could have had a heart attack by somebody saying, "boo" War is a bitch.  Our enemies cut the heads off women and children.  This guy didn't have the intent. Criminal Act and Criminal Mind. Why you did something is as important as what you did.

+1.

He was doing his job... this is like a medical doctor making a mistake and hurting his patient. Someone in the interragotors chain of command or unit should have done a medical eval on the prisoner, assuming there was time to do that of course. In this light, I think the charge of negligent homocide is too harsh.

I don't see how this soldier's bad luck and the Abu Grab dorks have anything in common.

Quoted: 1.  He was a warrant, slightly different animal. 2.  The interrogation technicque was approved by his commander. 3.  He had no intent to kill or cause harm to the person, merely scare them.  That is what interogation is. 4.  If the general had a heart condition, shit happens.  He could have had a heart attack by somebody saying, "boo" War is a bitch.  Our enemies cut the heads off women and children.

This is why the only problem I see with what happened is the loss of whatever intelligence we weren't able to get from the dear departed hajji before he met his fuckin virgins.

well, dance, dino, and the others can console themselves that although this guy didn't get hard time, his career is over. he's never gonna pick up cwo-2 or -3 (from whatever he is now). wonder how much tis he has...

Quoted: This is fuel for the propoganda machines of the insurgents and terrorists.

No, its piece of mind for our (maybe not your) troops to see that it is okay to use "coercive" interagation technics.
boohoo for the bathist

Aid and comfort continues...

Quoted: 1.  He was a warrant, slightly different animal. 2.  The interrogation technicque was approved by his commander. 3.  He had no intent to kill or cause harm to the person, merely scare them.  That is what interogation is. 4.  If the general had a heart condition, shit happens.  He could have had a heart attack by somebody saying, "boo" War is a bitch.  Our enemies cut the heads off women and children.  This guy didn't have the intent. Criminal Act and Criminal Mind. Why you did something is as important as what you did.

+1

Different spanks for different ranks-what else is new?

Some questions to clarify your positions:

Quoted: 1.  He was a warrant, slightly different animal.

He was a member of the US Military who swears to uphold the Constitution, treaties, and as a Military person represents the US Citizen?

Quoted: 2.  The interrogation technicque was approved by his commander.

Was what he did torture or not?  His commander approved, that means the Commander in Chief, Congress, and the American Citizen approved?

Quoted: 3.  He had no intent to kill or cause harm to the person, merely scare them.  That is what interogation is.

Interrogation means to question systematically, it does not mean to torture.  Lets look at his intent:  Would a reasonable person think that if you restrict a persons ability to breath and sit on their chest that the person may be harmed, have a heart attack, or suffocate?  Was his intent to torture to gain answers?

Quoted: 4.  If the general had a heart condition, shit happens.  He could have had a heart attack by somebody saying, "boo"

The general didn't die because someone said "boo" to him though, did he?  A person in the custody of the US Military died because a sleeping bag was placed over his head restricting his ability to breathe while a person sat on his chest, suffocating him.

Quoted: War is a bitch.  Our enemies cut the heads off women and children.

Iraqis raped Jessica Lynch.  This means US Military Personal can rape Iraqi citizens?

Quoted: Why you did something is as important as what you did.

So the end of gaining no information justified torturing and killing a prisoner?

Quoted: They also forgot to mention the general was wearing roller skates and had cursed at the interrogator.

Heh.

Quoted: Some questions to clarify your positions:

So let us clarify your position:

Aid and comfort as a hobby.

Quoted: Quoted: Some questions to clarify your positions: So let us clarify your position: Aid and comfort as a hobby.

So if a person doesn't patriotically scream how great it is for the US Military to torture and kill prisoners they are giving aid and comfort?

Wow..how this thread has exploded in the last fews hours!!

(1) If you thnk this was a despicable act by the CW3 so be it, it is your opinion and he was interrogating him in that fashion so your freedoms are still protected and you can go to the local Starbucks in your Escalade without any restriction of movement!!!!
(2) Last I recall not one of us was present at the time of the event, if you were speak up, So Monday Night Football is done for the season so stop trying to quarteback the Chief's actions
(3) No matter what the punishment received via the court martial, I am sure he still has to live will killing another person, and I am sure he sleeps at night very well knowing his sucessful interragtions saved countless lives in the "box" and abroad.

hug.gif

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some questions to clarify your positions: So let us clarify your position: Aid and comfort as a hobby. So if a person doesn't patriotically scream how great it is for the US Military to torture and kill prisoners they are giving aid and comfort?

If a person in post after post after post...

Well you get the idea... continue on with the aid and comfort crusade.

He was a trained interrogator, using an approved technique, in the course of his duties. To compare that with the asshats from Abu Gahrib shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the events. One was done in the course of a job that had an unfortunate outcome due to a medical condtion the interrogator was unaware of, one was done just for the hell of it.

To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it.

Our enemies don't call this torture, they laugh at us for thinking that. They know what torture is. That is not it.

Hell, I had worse done to me at boy scout camp.... I just wasn't unlucky enough to have a heart condition.

Quoted: If a person in post after post after post... Well you get the idea... continue on with the aid and comfort crusade.

Ok, I got it.  In post after post you , so therefore ......

Ok, let me ask you a couple questions:

Quoted: To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it.

What is the definition of torture?  Would a reasonable person think that if you restrict a persons ability to breath and sit on their chest that the person may be harmed, have a heart attack, or suffocate?

Quoted: Our enemies don't call this torture, they laugh at us for thinking that. They know what torture is. That is not it.

Our enemies kill women who defend themselves from rape, wipe their butts with their left hand then rinse it in water, and use suicide bombers.  Does this mean Americans should also?

Quoted: He was a trained interrogator, using an approved technique, in the course of his duties. To compare that with the asshats from Abu Gahrib shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the events. One was done in the course of a job that had an unfortunate outcome due to a medical condtion the interrogator was unaware of, one was done just for the hell of it. To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it.

anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would call it torture.

It has a long history under the name  peine forte et dure or pressing.  To claim it is not torture shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject or just plain old dishonesty.

I served in the military in the first gulf war, I support the war in Iraq, and I voted for the GWB in the last election.    Too bad I don't fall into you lame ass stereotype.

If it was an approved procedure, then we need a bit more oversite on the military interrogations.   Whoever approved the procedure needs to spend some time in Leavenworth contemplating his error.

WHO FUCKING CARES IF THE STUPID ASS HAJI DIED.

There is always these bleeding heart whineasses who say "WAAAAH That makes us as bad as them! WAAAAH." DAMN That gets old, same old tired ass banter over and over. IT is a fucking war. The object is to kill more of them than they kill of you. The problem with the US is we listen to these crybabies instead of smashing the enemy with whatever method we need. If they think the fuckhead has info than get it by whatever means necessary. I want them to save as many of OUR Troops lives as possible. PERIOD!

How many Troops and civilians have died in the hands of these scumbags? How many of our Troops have ever been treated well by a terrorist? How many fucking videos have you found on the internet of our Troops torturing anybody?

We as a nation put up with more shit than any other on earth. We show unfuckingbelievable restraint in war. So much restraint that it gets more of our Troops killed constantly.

I absolutely couldn't care any less if any of those shitheads die. But I do care about all of you whiney crybabies who bitch about the enemies  fucking rights.

It's been said over and over, The enemy knows they can't beat us on the battlefield. Their strategy is to beat us on TV. You dumbass crybabies are helping them win.

Quoted: Quoted: I really thought this guy would get some hard time. Unbelievable he didn't.

Fuck that, if we are at war then lets put it to these mother fuckers, al qaeda laughs their asses off at our "interogation" tactics we are so weak to them and a joke.

Quoted: Ok, let me ask you a couple questions: Quoted: To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it. What is the definition of torture?  Would a reasonable person think that if you restrict a persons ability to breath and sit on their chest that the person may be harmed, have a heart attack, or suffocate? Quoted: Our enemies don't call this torture, they laugh at us for thinking that. They know what torture is. That is not it. Our enemies kill women who defend themselves from rape, wipe their butts with their left hand then rinse it in water, and use suicide bombers.  Does this mean Americans should also?

]

My definition of torture is reading your seditious horsesshit laced with lies and stupidity.

You are a menace to all around them the only problems is your criminal stupidity is going to get other people than yourself killed. Americans and Iraqis are dying everyday because the exact stupidity you pedal.

The SOB died to bad that was not the intent move on… the only problem here is Lewis Welshofer Jr. was put on trail at all he was using an approved technique.

Quoted: My definition of torture is reading your seditious horsesshit laced with lies and stupidity. You are a menace to all around them the only problems is your criminal stupidity is going to get other people than yourself killed. Americans and Iraqis are dying everyday because the exact stupidity you pedal. The SOB died to bad that was not the intent move on… the only problem here is Lewis Welshofer Jr. was put on trail at all he was using an approved technique.

Do you have anything to back up what you say?

Other then that you think that anyone who questions what the government does is evil?  

It's great for the politicians that people don't think.

Quoted: Ok, let me ask you a couple questions: Quoted: To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it. What is the definition of torture?  Would a reasonable person think that if you restrict a persons ability to breath and sit on their chest that the person may be harmed, have a heart attack, or suffocate?

A sleeping bag does not restrict a person ability to breathe. I sleep night after night bundled up in one with my face nowehere near the opening because it is warmer like that. The sleeping bag was to make him uncomfoartable, and possibly a little claustraphobic, not restrict his breathing. Sitting on his chest was a method of restrining him in that position. It was not designed to cause any form of bodily harm or pain, the guy just happened to have a bad heart.

Quoted: Our enemies don't call this torture, they laugh at us for thinking that. They know what torture is. That is not it.

Our enemies kill women who defend themselves from rape, wipe their butts with their left hand then rinse it in water, and use suicide bombers.  Does this mean Americans should also?


No, and I never said they should, you are twisting my words. What I am saying is not even the most liberal of interpritations in the Arad world would consider this torture unless they can get some propaganda value from it.

Quoted: Quoted: He was a trained interrogator, using an approved technique, in the course of his duties. To compare that with the asshats from Abu Gahrib shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the events. One was done in the course of a job that had an unfortunate outcome due to a medical condtion the interrogator was unaware of, one was done just for the hell of it. To call what he did torture shows a complete lack of understandng of the term, a lack of real life experience, and a predisposition to making anything the military, government, or administration (pick whatever fits in your case) out to be as bad as you can make it. anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would call it torture. It has a long history under the name  peine forte et dure or pressing.  To claim it is not torture shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject or just plain old dishonesty. I served in the military in the first gulf war, I support the war in Iraq, and I voted for the GWB in the last election.    Too bad I don't fall into you lame ass stereotype. If it was an approved procedure, then we need a bit more oversite on the military interrogations.   Whoever approved the procedure needs to spend some time in Leavenworth contemplating his error.

For one who bashes others lack of understanding of history you seem to not know that peine forte et dure Involved placing massive amounts of stone on a person, much more weight than someones body, with the INTENT to make them stop breathing. That is a far cry from what happened in this case. In this case the peron was put in a sleeping bag to make them uncomfortable and claustraphobic, and he sat on him to restrain him. Thats a far cry from piling rocks on someone until they can't breathe, and it is quite frankly intellectualy dishonest to equate the two.

Cops sit on people all the time to restrain them. Like I said before, I had worse done to me and we did worse to everyone else on boy scout campouts.

Let me guess.... Air Force?