Abu
Ghraib Dog Tactics Came From Guantanamo
Testimony Further Links Procedures at 2 Facilities
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Page A14
Military interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq learned about the use of military working
dogs to intimidate detainees from a team of interrogators
dispatched from the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, according to court testimony yesterday.
One interrogation analyst also testified that sleep
deprivation and forced nudity -- which were used
in Cuba on high-value detainees -- later were approved
tactics at Abu Ghraib. Another soldier said that
interrogators would regularly pass instructions
to have dog handlers and military police "scare
up" detainees as part of interrogation plans,
part of an approved approach that relied on exploiting
the fear of dogs.
The preliminary hearing at Fort Meade, Md., for
two Army dog handlers accused of mistreating detainees
provided more evidence that severe tactics approved
for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo migrated
to Iraq and spiraled into the notorious abuse at
Abu Ghraib in the late summer and early fall of
2003. The testimony came days after an internal
military investigation showed the similarity between
techniques used on the suspected "20th hijacker"
in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and tactics seen
in photographs at the prison that shocked the world.
Several Republican senators are pushing legislation
-- opposed by the White House -- that would regulate
the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and other
military prisons. One of them, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham
(R-S.C.), released recently declassified internal
memos written in 2003 by the military's top lawyers
in which they warned the Pentagon about developing
severe tactics, arguing that they would heighten
danger for
U.S. troops caught by the enemy, among other problems.
"We have taken the legal and moral 'high-road'
in the conduct of our military operations regardless
of how others may operate," Air Force Maj.
Gen. Jack L. Rives wrote in a Feb. 5, 2003, memo.
"We need to consider the overall impact of
approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving
official approval and legal sanction to the application
of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have
consistently been trained are unlawful."
At Fort Meade yesterday, soldiers testified that
the top military intelligence officer at the prison,
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, approved the use of dogs
for interrogations. Maj. Matthew Miller, a prosecutor,
also revealed that Pappas, faced with a request
from interrogators to use dogs on three stubborn
detainees captured at the same time as then-Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, "admitted he failed
to ask" Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the
top general in Iraq, for approval as he was supposed
to have done.
Pvt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick, one of
the ringleaders of abuse by military police who
is serving an eight-year prison term, testified
by phone from Fort Leavenworth, Kan., that interrogators
were authorized to use dogs and that a civilian
contract interrogator left him lists of the cells
he wanted dog handlers to visit. "They were
allowed to use them to . . . intimidate inmates,"
Frederick said.
Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 31, of California, and Sgt.
Michael J. Smith, 24, of Florida, are charged with
maltreatment of detainees, largely for allegedly
encouraging and permitting unmuzzled working dogs
to threaten and attack them. Prosecutors have focused
on an incident caught in published photographs,
when the two men allegedly cornered a naked detainee
and allowed the dogs to bite him on each thigh as
he cowered in fear.
The dog handlers also allegedly participated in
a "contest" to see who could make more
detainees urinate or defecate on themselves, but
defense attorneys contended that there is no actual
witness to such a game and that the claims were
merely rumors that spread throughout the prison.
This week's hearing is the military's equivalent
of a civilian preliminary court hearing or grand
jury investigation. Maj. Glenn Simpkins, as investigating
officer, will recommend whether authorities should
send charges to a court-martial, whether the soldiers
should face administrative punishment or whether
no charges should be pursued.
Cardona faces nine separate counts and a possible
maximum sentence of 16 1/2 years in prison; Smith
faces 14 separate counts and a possible maximum
sentence of 29 1/2 years in prison.
Smith's lawyer, Capt. Jason Duncan, questioned a
military interrogator, Spec. John Harold Ketzer,
who acknowledged that a staff sergeant from Guantanamo
had trained him on how to use dogs during questioning
of detainees.
That staff sergeant, James Vincent Lucas, told Army
investigators that he traveled from Cuba to Iraq
from October to December 2003 as part of a six-person
team to bring his "lessons learned" and
to "provide guidelines" to interrogators
at Abu Ghraib who were setting up their operation,
according to investigative documents obtained by
The Washington Post.
Lucas said in a statement that he saw no abuse but
was aware that "short chaining" was used
on some detainees "and clothing removal could
be employed." "It would be part of the
interrogation plan and approved by 'higher,' "
Lucas told investigators, adding that there was
a lot of nakedness at Abu Ghraib and a fair amount
of brainstorming about innovative and aggressive
techniques.
"Removal of clothing for interrogation purposes
was a 'questionable technique' that needed approval
and was allowed in [Guantanamo], but rarely occurred."
Harvey Volzer, Cardona's civilian attorney, said
he plans to call at least one witness today to talk
about a September 2003 visit to Abu Ghraib by Maj.
Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then in charge of the Guantanamo
prison. "There's a direct link between Guantanamo
and Abu Ghraib," Volzer said.
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
