[h]undreds of Iraqi prisoners were held in Abu Ghraib prison for long periods even though there was no evidence that they posed a security threat to US forces....The report, obtained by the New York Times, was submitted to Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior American commander in Iraq.
[Major-General Donald] Ryder, the army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" towards the US occupying forces.
This comes as no surprise; after all, the scathing report by the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) included the statement that observers were told by US intelligence that 70-90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake. And, the Times story makes clear, one a detainee was labeled a "security risk" it was very hard to get that changed.
In one incident described in detail by the senior Army officer, an aggressive roundup in September brought 57 Iraqis into custody. But a review by military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib determined that only two had intelligence value and that the rest should be freed.It also should be no surprise to longtime readers here, as I referred to several instances of people being arrested simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about the occupation back on November 21.
An American general at the headquarters in Baghdad overruled that decision, and dictated that all 57 Iraqis be kept in custody.
In addition, the officer said, early judgments about who was a security prisoner were often made in haste and in error. "But once they were tagged as security detainees, it was very hard to get them released," said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern over retribution from superiors.
Footnote: There is no link to the report on the ICRC website because, as the group points out, it was supposed to be confidential. However, it has acknowledged that "it is our report."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment