U.S. Interrogators Charged With Murder

Four American soldiers, three from Military Intelligence, were charged with murder today in the asphyxiation death of an Iraqi General that prosecutors say occurred during an interrogation session. Interesting passage from the Colorado Springs Gazette account:

One source close to the case said the public might not get more detailed information because much of it is highly classified.

The regiment's commander in Iraq, Col. David Teeples made a single statement about the case before he was reassigned to the Pentagon in June.

"There is no evidence, there is no proof," Teeples said.

Both warrant officers are from a unit responsible for intercepting radio signals and other electronic intelligence duties. Neither is trained as an interrogator.

Comments

[joe]

Just terrible.

So, legally, if the coercive techniques these guys used were legal, as long as they don't result in death...

And if the troops didn't mean to kill the guy...

Than they had neither the intent to murder, nor did someone get killed during the commission of a felony.

This might not meet the legal standard for murder.

Now, perhaps they demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life, but if they can point to statements endorsing this kind of torture by their superiors, they could argue that they didn't think their actions could result in death.

[thoreau]

I'm sure Shannon Love will explain to us that this was no big deal and we obviously don't understand the intelligence business.

[Mark S.]

What are ya complainin' about? He wuz nuthin' but a filthy, moose-lim terrorist in league that the Al Kay-da and the Sa-Damn and that Bin Lay-din! These proud 'Meri-can Sooooooilders deserve the Corn-gressional Medal of Honor for showin' em the 'Meri-can Way with a boot in thar ass!

REMEMBER 9-11! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!!!

(I'm Toby Keith, and I ape-prove this message.)

[James]

What makes this episode so supersecret that they cannot tell us what happened in the room?

This is one of those things that just makes me feel like the US has taken a disastrous wrong turn that's going to take us to a very bad place.

[Ken Shultz]

"Both warrant officers are from a unit responsible for intercepting radio signals and other electronic intelligence duties. Neither is trained as an interrogator."

How deep do students of interrogation get into the textbook before they hit the chapter about how asphyxiating someone is disgracefully wrong.

[Skeptikos]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

And 2 plus 2 = 5 you traitors.

[thoreau]

Ken-

Not to mention the chapter that says "Once you kill a prisoner you can't get any more information from him." I realize that many of the people on this forum don't care that the Iraqi prisoner was killed, but what about the value of his information?

[drf]

does anybody think that the pre 9-11 situation in iraq was maintainable?

is it fair to say, that, absent a MAD doctrine, that iraq would have to have been "done" in some way or another, sooner or later?

abstracting from 9-11, did anybody out there support some sort of aggressive campaign against SH to remove him?

speaking for the hawks here, did anybody against the war think that the 9/11 "success" against us would have spurred others on against us? (think: iran post vietnam)...

i am against this war, barring any connection between 9/11 or ready-to-use WMDs. but that does not mean that i was against being tough or getting tough with iraq pre 9/11. i wish the prez who probably cheated with the "lou holz lookalike kevin c" in my accounting class in the first year of our mba program had finished the job in afghanistan before embarking on iraq, which, according to what i've seen, and seeing it through a critical-bush-critical-clinton filter-not-pro-not-against-israel filter, doesn't see a threat that merits war (yet), that the current waste of resourses might allow al quaida to escape? but those questions are still active.

and i do think that tough action should have been taken against iraq at some point before we did, and that the timing this time 'round was wrong. and i thought we should have used our perfect argument (since it must have been perfect, since we went to war) to convince our "allies" of the need. plus: apparently we have a "perfect" argument that bush is pro constitution and pro-bill of rights, according to a dumb lady from naperville (IL) who was at the dubyah ralley at the goose island brewery (at the same time a LP event was being held).

anti patriot, pro abortion, anti gun "control", suspicious of death penalties (since i dont' trust the post office as a government entity), anti religion in politics, anti state as "helping others", hating politcally correctness (having gone to an extreme school in the late 80s) etc....
drf

[Buck Turgeson]

Sounds like the general was given a rebirthing ceremony to help him remember why he hates his mommy.

Just like the Nazi's, now we are trying the suspected concentration camp guards.

The peace-nics and warmongers seem to have the same mantra:

We Bad, We Bad, We Bad...

[Dan]

So, legally, if the coercive techniques these guys used were legal, as long as they don't result in death... And if the troops didn't mean to kill the guy... Than they had neither the intent to murder, nor did someone get killed during the commission of a felony

Is it legal to punish children by withholding food from them? Yes, obviously -- parents have been using the "send them to bed without any supper" technique since who knows when. That doesn't mean that it's legal for parents to accidentally kill their children by refusing to let them eat for a month. Nor could the parents point to some authority figure and say "he told us to starve them!" and escape punishment.

[Jennifer]

Now, now. This was no worse than a fraternity initiation!

If only Shannon were here to help me explain why.

[Fodderstompf]

Ken Schultz writes:
How deep do students of interrogation get into the textbook before they hit the chapter about how asphyxiating someone is disgracefully wrong.

As Assistant Attorney General [1] Jay S Bybee so poignantly remarked, "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Now, whether this accident can be called torture - as anti-war Liberals no doubt would call it - depends entirely on whether the Iraqi general passed out before he died. If he was unconscious when he died, then he wasn't caused physical pain "equivalent in intensity" to the "pain accompanying death", was he? Anwer me that, you bleeding heart peaceniks.

[1] Dear Leader has since appointed the esteemed Mr Bybee to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit - perhaps in gratitude for Mr Bybee's groundbreaking work in redefining torture for a post-9/11 world.

[joe]

Dan

Withholding food for a months will obviously kill a child. I'm saying, if these guys had received some kind of minimal training and instruction in using this type of torture...

Christ, what am I saying? I'm saying, this episode doesn't make any sense at all, unless there's somebody above the rank of Warrant Officer sending down instructions to engage in this type of interrogation, and not adequately keeping an eye on his command.

[Dan]

I'm saying, this episode doesn't make any sense at all, unless there's somebody above the rank of Warrant Officer sending down instructions to engage in this type of interrogation, and not adequately keeping an eye on his command.

That should read:

"This episode doesn't make any sense at all, unless either there's somebody above the rank of Warrant Officer sending down instructions to engage in this type of interrogation, or the Warrant Officers' supervisor was not adequately keeping an eye on his command."

Guards torture prisoners unless you keep an eye on them; that's well documented.