Do conservative media figures want to raise taxes on middle- and low-income Americans?

Hannity falsely claimed "50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes"

Deaths and Torture in US Custody Commands Responsibility Feb 2006

Command’s Responsibility
Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan
Written by Hina Shamsi and Edited by Deborah Pearlstein February 2006

Table of Contents
I. Introduction................................................................ 1 II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force ......... 5 Twelve Individual Cases Profiled.................... 6 III. Death by Officially Unknown, “Natural” or Other Causes .................................................... 21 Nine Individual Cases Profiled...................... 21 IV. Failures in Investigation ........................................ 29 V. Failure of Accountability......................................... 35 VI. The Path Ahead .................................................... 41 VII. Appendices .......................................................... 43 VIII. Endnotes.......................................................... 103

A Human Rights First Report

About Us
Human Rights First is a leading human rights advocacy organization based in New York City and Washington, DC. Since 1978, we have worked in the United States and abroad to create a secure and humane world – advancing justice, human dignity, and respect for the rule of law. All of our activities are supported by private contributions. We accept no government funds.

Acknowledgements
This report was written by Hina Shamsi and edited by Deborah Pearlstein. Others who contributed to the report are Maureen Byrnes, Avi Cover, Miriam Datskovsky, Ken Hurwitz, Allison Johnson, Priti Patel, Michael Posner, and Lauren Smith. Michael Russo made substantial contributions at all stages of research and report-writing. Human Rights First would like to thank the many former military officers and other experts who generously provided insights on aspects of the report. Human Rights First gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the following: Anonymous (2); Arca Foundation; The Atlantic Philanthropies; The David Berg Foundation; Joan K. Davidson (The J.M. Kaplan Fund); Charles Lawrence Keith and Clara Miller Foundation; The Elysium Foundation; FJC – A Foundation of Donor Advised Funds; Florence Baker Martineau Foundation; Ford Foundation; The Arthur Helton Fellowship; Herb Block Foundation; JEHT Foundation; John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; John Merck Fund; The Kaplen Foundation; Merlin Foundation; Open Society Institute; The Overbrook Foundation; Puget Sound Fund of Tides Foundation; Rhodebeck Charitable Trust; The Paul D. Schurgot Foundation, Inc.; TAUPO Community Fund of Tides Foundation; The Oak Foundation. Cover design: Sarah Graham Cover photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Headquarters 333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001-5108 Tel: 212.845.5200 Fax: 212.845.5299 www.humanrightsfirst.org

Washington D.C. Office 100 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-5625 Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 202.543.5999

Command’s Responsibility documents a dozen brutal deaths as the result of the most horrific treatment. One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy. The law of military justice has long recognized that military leaders are held responsible for the conduct of their troops. Yet this report also documents that no civilian official or officer above the rank of major responsible for interrogation and detention practices has been charged in connection with the torture or abuse-related death of a detainee in U.S. custody. And the highest punishment for anyone handed down in the case of a torture-related death has been five months in jail. This is not accountability as we know it in the United States.
John D. Hutson Rear Admiral (Ret.), JAGC, USN

The torture and death catalogued in excruciating detail by this important Human Rights First report did not happen spontaneously. They are the consequence of a shocking breakdown of command discipline on the part of the Army’s Officer Corps. It is very clear that cruel treatment of detainees became a common Army practice because generals and colonels and majors allowed it to occur, even encouraged it. What is unquestionably broken is the fundamental principle of command accountability, and that starts at the very top. The Army exists, not just to win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.
David R. Irvine Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Command’s Responsibility — 1

I. Introduction
Do I believe that [abuse] may have hurt us in winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world? Yes, and I do regret that. But one of the ways we address that is to show the world that we don’t just talk about Geneva, we enforce Geneva . . . . [T]hat’s why you have these military court-martials; that’s why you have these administrative penalties imposed upon those responsible because we want to find out what happened so it doesn’t happen again. And if someone has done something wrong, they’re going to be held accountable.
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Confirmation Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee January 6, 2005

Basically [an August 30, 2003 memo] said that as far as they [senior commanders] knew there were no ROE [Rules of Engagement] for interrogations. They were still struggling with the definition for a detainee. It also said that commanders were tired of us taking casualties and they [told interrogators they] wanted the gloves to come off . . . . Other than a memo saying that they were to be considered “unprivileged combatants” we received no guidance from them [on the status of detainees].
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Testifying during his Court Martial for Death of Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush January 19, 2006

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global “war on terror.” According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death. Despite these numbers, four years since the first known death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in

fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this list – those of detainees tortured to death – only half have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail. It is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of punishment when so few have been punished, and when the deliberations of juries and commanders are largely unknown. Nonetheless, two patterns clearly emerge: (1) because of investigative and evidentiary failures, accountability for wrongdoing has been limited at best, and almost non-existent for command; and (2)

A Human Rights First Report

2 — I. Introduction

commanders have played a key role in undermining chances for full accountability. In dozens of cases documented here, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation, and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths. Commanders have failed both to provide troops clear guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on vigorous investigations. And command responsibility itself – the law that requires commanders to be held liable for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known – has been all but forgotten. The failure to deal adequately with these cases has opened a serious accountability gap for the U.S. military and intelligence community, and has produced a credibility gap for the United States – between policies the leadership says it respects on paper, and behavior it actually allows in practice. As long as the accountability gap exists, there will be little incentive for military command to correct bad behavior, or for civilian leadership to adopt policies that follow the law. As long as that gap exists, the problem of torture and abuse will remain. This report examines how cases of deaths in custody have been handled. It is about how and why this “accountability gap” between U.S. policy and practice has come to exist. And it is about why ensuring that officials up and down the chain of command bear responsibility for detainee mistreatment should be a top priority for the United States.

The Cases to Date
The cases behind these numbers have names and faces. This report describes more than 20 cases in detail, to illustrate both the failures in investigation and in accountability. Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or intelligence official has been punished criminally in connection with Jamadi’s death. The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush’s death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church. And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in which investigative failures have made accountability impossible. Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death – Hatab’s body – was rendered unusable in court. Hatab’s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner’s findings of strangulation was never found. Although policing crimes in wartime is always challenging, government investigations into deaths in custody since 2002 have been unacceptable. The cases discussed in this report include incidents where deaths went unreported, witnesses were never interviewed, evidence was lost or mishandled, and record-keeping was scattershot. They also include investigations that were cut short as a result of decisions by commanders – who are given the authority to decide whether and to what extent to pursue an investigation – to rely on incomplete inquiries, or to discharge a suspect before an investigation can be completed. Given the extent of the non-reporting, under-reporting, and lax record keeping to date, it is likely that the statistics reported here, if anything, under-count the number of deaths.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 3

Among our key findings: • Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations; Investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution; Record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution; Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability; Overbroad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability; Agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined; Effective punishment has been too little and too late.

Closing the Accountability Gap
The military has taken some steps toward correcting the failings identified here. Under public pressure following the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs in 2004, the Army reopened over a dozen investigations into deaths in custody and conducted multiple investigation reviews; many of these identified serious flaws. The Defense Department also “clarified” some existing rules, reminding commanders that they were required to report “immediately” the death of a detainee to service criminal investigators, and barring release of a body without written authorization from the relevant investigation agency or the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. It also made the performance of an autopsy the norm, with exceptions made only by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. And the Defense Department says that it is now providing pre-deployment training on the Geneva Conventions and rules of engagement to all new units to be stationed in Iraq and responsible for guarding and processing detainees. But these reforms are only first steps. They have not addressed systemic flaws in the investigation of detainee deaths, or in the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for wrongdoing. Most important, they have not addressed the role of those leaders who have emerged as a pivotal part of the problem – military and civilian command. Commanders are the only line between troops in the field who need clear, usable rules, and policy-makers who have provided broad instructions since 2002 that have been at worst unlawful and at best unclear. Under today’s military justice system, commanders also have broad discretion to insist that investigations into wrongdoing be pursued, and that charges, when appropriate, be brought. And commanders have a historic, legal, and ethical duty to take responsibility for the acts of their subordinates. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized since World War II, commanders are responsible for the acts of their subordinates if they knew or should have known unlawful activity was underway, and yet did nothing to correct or stop it. That doctrine of command responsibility has yet to be invoked in a single prosecution arising out of the “war on terror.” Closing this accountability gap will require, at a minimum, a zero-tolerance approach to commanders who fail to take steps to provide clear guidance, and who allow unlawful conduct to persist on their watch. Zero tolerance includes at least this:

•

•

•

•

•

•

A Human Rights First Report

4 — I. Introduction

First, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005. Full
implementation requires that the President clarify his commitment to abide by the ban (which was called into question by the President’s statement signing the bill into law). It also requires the President to instruct all relevant military and intelligence agencies involved in detention and interrogation operations to review and revise internal rules and legal guidance to make sure they are in line with the statutory mandate.

Finally, Congress should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the “war on terror.”
Such a commission could investigate and identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and specific path going forward to make sure those mistakes never happen again. The proposal for a commission has been endorsed by a wide range of distinguished Americans from Republican and Democratic members of Congress to former presidents to leaders in the U.S. military. We urge Congress to act without further delay.

Second, the President, the U.S. military, and relevant intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken seriously – not from the moment a crime becomes public, but from the moment the United States sends troops and agents into the field. The President should issue
regular reminders to command that abuse will not be tolerated, and commanders should regularly give troops the same, serious message. Relevant agencies should welcome independent oversight – by Congress and the American people – by establishing a centralized, up-to-date, and publicly available collection of information about the status of investigations and prosecutions in torture and abuse cases (including trial transcripts, documents, and evidence presented), and all incidents of abuse. And the Defense and Justice Departments should move forward promptly with longpending actions against those involved in cases of wrongful detainee death or abuse.

This report underscores what a growing number of Americans have come to understand. As a distinguished group of retired generals and admirals put it in a September 2004 letter to the President: “Understanding what has gone wrong and what can be done to avoid systemic failure in the future is essential not only to ensure that those who may be responsible are held accountable for any wrongdoing, but also to ensure that the effectiveness of the U.S. military and intelligence operations is not compromised by an atmosphere of permissiveness, ambiguity, or confusion. This is fundamentally a command responsibility.” It is the responsibility of American leadership.

Third, the U.S. military should make good on the obligation of command responsibility by developing, in consultation with congressional, military justice, human rights, and other advisors, a public plan for holding all those who engage in wrongdoing accountable. Such a plan
might include the implementation of a single, high-level convening authority across the service branches for allegations of detainee torture and abuse. Such a convening authority would review and make decisions about whom to hold responsible; bring uniformity, certainty, and more independent oversight to the process of discipline and punishment; and make punishing commanders themselves more likely.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 5

II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force
An American soldier told us of our father’s death. He said: “Your father died during the interrogation.” So we thought maybe it was high blood pressure under personal stress. This would happen in American detention centers. People would die of high blood pressure. But afterwards the people who were imprisoned, detained with him said: “No. They would torture him and they assigned American soldiers to him especially for the torture. He died during the torture.” . . . Honestly, my mother, after the case, after they brought my father dead, she entered a state we can say a coma or like a coma. She withdrew from life.
Hossam Mowoush (in translation) Son of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, 1 Killed in U.S. Custody November 26, 2003

Of the close to 100 deaths in U.S. custody in the global “war on terror,” 2 at least a third were victims of homicide at the hands of one or more of their captors.3 At least eight men, and as many as 12, were tortured to death. 4 The homicides also include deaths that the military initially classified as due to “natural causes,” and deaths that the military continues to classify as “justified.” This chapter briefly reviews the facts of some of these worst cases, and the consequences – or not – for those involved.

Definition of a Detainee
In this report, we include any death of a detainee under effective U.S. control as a “death in custody.” We adopt the definition of “detainee” used by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID) – the Army’s agency for investigating crimes committed by soldiers – “any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force.”5 For the purposes of this report, we do not include people killed in the course of combat or as a result of injuries sustained during combat, or persons shot at checkpoints when it is alleged that they disobeyed orders to stop their vehicle. We do include prisoners in U.S. military detention centers, as well as those who have been killed while being interrogated in their homes, or shot at the point of their capture, after surrendering to U.S. troops. Once a person has been captured, the U.S. military or intelligence agency assumes control over him, and can restrain him against his will. It is under these circumstances that American law and values are most acutely tested.

A Human Rights First Report

6 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

PROFILE: HOMICIDE So then the interrogator came that used to interrogate [me] in the Baghdadi jail. . . . He told me: “We are going to let you see your father.” Of course this was a point of relief. [Mohammed was taken by U.S. forces to the facility where his father was held, the “Blacksmith Hotel.”]. . . . They took me to my father’s room. He was under very tight security. I looked in and I saw him. He looked completely drained and distraught and the impacts or signs of the torture were clear on him. His clothes were old and torn. He was really upset. When I first saw him I was overwhelmed and had a breakdown. I started crying and I embraced him and I told him: “Don’t worry. I am brave. I am going to be able to handle these circumstances like you taught me.” At this instant the interrogator stormed in. He grabbed me and I tried to remain seated . . . . So he threatened my father that if he didn’t speak he would turn me over to the men who interrogated my father and do to me what they did to him or he would have me killed in an execution operation . . . . So they took me to him and they said: “This is your son, we are going to execute him if you don’t confess.” My father didn’t confess. One of them pulled me to a place where my father couldn’t see. He pulled his gun, he took it out of the place where it was kept and he shot a fire into the sky. And he hit me a hit so that I would cry out. So, this moment there was at the place where I was, blood, I mean drops of blood. They [then] took [me] to the side and they brought my father and said: “This is your son’s blood. We killed him. So, it is better for you to confess lest this happen to the rest of your sons.” My father, when he saw the blood, he must have thought that I had been killed. At this moment, he fell to the ground.
Mohammed Mowoush (in translation), describing his last sight of his father, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed 6 Mowhoush. Killed in U.S. Custody November 26, 2003

Abed Hamed Mowhoush
Abed Hamed Mowhoush turned himself over to U.S. forces in Iraq on November 10, 2003,7 about a month before U.S. forces captured ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and at a time when pressure on Army intelligence to produce information was at its height. At Forward Operating Base (“FOB”) Tiger, where Mowhoush appeared, the U.S. Army had set up a base camp and prison operations earlier in the year; the facility was near the town of Al Qaim at the western edge of Anbar province, about a mile from the Syrian border.8 By mid-October 2003, FOB Tiger was staffed with about 1,000 soldiers from the 1st Squadron of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (“ACR”), based in Fort Carson, Colorado Springs, Colorado.9 Their mission included the detention and interrogation of captured prisoners, a mission that took on added importance that November, as U.S. forces picked up Iraqi men and boys in the region in an effort to quell a rising insurgency. According to Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who was deployed to Iraq in March 2003 as part of the military intelligence company of the 3rd Major General Abed Hamed ACR,10 guidelines Mowhoush with a grandson on how to conduct prisoner interrogations at FOB Tiger were sparse.11 Welshofer described a captain’s memo he had received in late August 2003, which stated that there were no specific rules of engagement for interrogations in Iraq, and that U.S. Army Central Command officials were still struggling with the basic definition of a “detainee.”12 Although specific rules were hard to come by, command was clear that intelligence to date was inadequate and, as Welshofer put it: “[t]hey were looking for ideas outside the box.”13 In the meantime, captured detainees were to be considered “unprivileged

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 7

combatants”14 – a status that the Bush Administration had separately suggested meant detainees were not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.15 Welshofer understood this guidance to include detainees like Mowhoush,16 a former uniformed Major General in the Iraqi Army,17 and a soldier whom in past conflicts the United States would have considered presumptively under Geneva protections.18 Soon after, a September 10, 2003 memo from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then U.S. Army Commander of the Coalition Joint Task Force in Iraq, underscored with new specificity the confusion over the applicability of Geneva protections in Iraq.19 Even as he recognized that other countries might view certain practices as inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions, General Sanchez authorized such harsh interrogation techniques as sleep and environmental manipulation, the use of aggressive dogs, and the use of stress positions.20 Welshofer testified later that the meaning of “stress positions” had never been explained in his Army training back in the States; 21 Welshofer was left largely to his own devices to fill in the meaning of the term. According to Welshofer, the Sanchez memo (disclosed publicly for the first time in January 2006) was the only guidance on permissible interrogation techniques in Iraq he ever received.22

Still unsatisfied with Mowhoush’s answers in interrogation, Welshofer’s unit brought Mowhoush with them when they moved a few days later from FOB Tiger to a converted railroad station called the Blacksmith Hotel.28 The “Hotel” was a makeshift facility, set up to handle an influx of Iraqi prisoners anticipated from sweeps intended to stop the growing insurgency.29 There, on November 24, Welshofer called in interrogation reinforcements.30 According to military documents and trial testimony, Welshofer engaged CIA and possibly Army Special Forces personnel – together with a “Scorpion” team of Iraqi paramilitary forces on the CIA payroll – to ratchet up the pressure.31 Three separate soldiers eventually recounted what they saw and heard.32 The new team beat Mowhoush with sledgehammer handles;33 as one soldier testified, eight to ten of the non-military forces “interrogate[d] Mowhoush and ‘beat the crap’ out of him.”34 Specialist Jerry Loper, a guard at the Blacksmith Hotel, was standing outside the interrogation room the night of November 24 when some of the beatings were going on, and described hearing the thudding sound of Mowhoush being hit. “It wasn’t like they were hitting a wall,” said Loper, “[t]here were loud screams.”35 After Mowhoush’s death, an Army autopsy revealed the effects of the beatings: Mowhoush had “massive” bruising and five broken ribs.36 The next day, Welshofer interrogated Mowhoush again, this time on the roof of the interrogation building. Here, in the absence of any more specific instructions for interrogation techniques, Welshofer reached back beyond his basic training in the Army, to his own service as a trainer at a military school in Hawaii where U.S. service members are coached on what they might face if there were to fall into enemy hands.37 The military’s “SERE” courses (standing for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) were based on studies of North Korean and Vietnamese efforts to break American prisoners; the courses aimed to subject trainees to the brutal detention conditions they would have faced at the hands of the United States’ former enemies.38 Among other things, the courses put troops through prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, and painful body positions; studies of the effects on troops subjected to these techniques showed most suffering from overwhelming stress, despair, and intense anxiety, and some from hallucinations and delusions as well.39 Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorized for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003.40 When Welshofer was asked during his court martial whether anyone told him

The Interrogations
By the time Mowhoush, 57, arrived at FOB Tiger in mid-November, his four sons had been in U.S. custody for approximately 11 days, held in a prison outside Baghdad.23 According to one of them, Hossam, U.S. forces made clear to the sons in the course of interrogations that they had been arrested for the purpose of making sure General Mowhoush turned himself in.24 According to the son, Mowhoush arrived at the base expecting that he would be able to set his sons free.25 But Mowhoush’s sons remained in detention; one of them would later play a part in U.S. efforts to extract from their father what information they could. Chief Welshofer was among the first interrogators Mowhoush would see. According to Welshofer, his interrogation of Mowhoush on the day of Mowhoush’s arrival on November 10 was limited to direct questions – a two-hour affair that passed with little of consequence.26 By the end of that week, though, Welshofer had begun to take a different approach. Welshofer took Mowhoush, his hands bound, before an audience of fellow detainees and slapped him – an attempt, according to Welshofer, to show Mowhoush who was in charge.27

A Human Rights First Report

8 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

that SERE techniques were not to be used in Iraq, Welshofer was unequivocal: “No sir.”41 With these techniques in his interrogator’s mind, Mowhoush’s next session included having his hands bound, being struck repeatedly on the back of his arms, in the painful spot near the humerus, and being doused with water42 – all these, according to Welshofer and others who later testified, drawn from the lessons of techniques learned in SERE.43 Later that evening, Chief Welshofer arranged for a short meeting between Mowhoush and his youngest son, Mohammed, then 15 years old; Welshofer hoped the meeting would compel Mowhoush to convey more useful information. 44 He later described Mowhoush as being moved to tears upon seeing his son.45 According to Mohammed though, the meeting was more than a conversation; in interviews with Human Rights First, Mohammed explained that U.S. personnel made Mowhoush believe his son would be executed if he did not speak to their satisfaction, and soldiers fired a bullet into the ground near Mohammed’s head within earshot but just beyond the eyesight of Mowhoush.46 Mohammed reports this was the last time he saw his father alive.47 By November 26, Welshofer was ready to try yet another technique – stuffing his subject into a sleeping bag until Mowhoush was prepared to respond.48 Welshofer had already proposed the sleeping bag technique to his Company Commander, Major Jessica Voss, who authorized its use.49 Much later, trial testimony would make clear that the technique had been used on at least 12 detainees.50 It proved catastrophically ineffective in Mowhoush’s case. During his final interrogation, Mowhoush was shoved head-first into the sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and rolled from his stomach to his back. Welshofer sat on Mowhoush’s chest and blocked his nose and mouth.51 At one point, according to Loper, Mowhoush started to clinch and kick his legs, “almost like he was being electrocuted.”52 It was at this point Mowhoush gave out, dying (according to the autopsy report) of asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression.53 The day after his death, the U.S. military issued a press release stating that Mowhoush had died of natural causes.54

Taking Account
Despite the brutality of Mowhoush’s death, and the likely involvement of officials from the CIA, only one individual, Chief Welshofer, has faced court martial for his actions. Over the course of a 6-day trial in Colorado, more than two years after Mowhoush’s final interrogation, a 6-member Army jury heard testimony that civilian leaders in the Administration had instructed that Geneva Convention protections against cruel and inhuman treatment would not apply in this conflict; that the U.S. commanding general in Iraq, General Sanchez, had authorized “stress positions” in interrogation55; and that, according to Welshofer and his own commanding officer, Major Voss, stuffing a detainee in a sleeping bag was widely understood to fall within that general authorization.56 Jurors also heard testimony, some closed to the public, of the involvement of the CIA and Special Forces, as well as of the Iraqi paramilitary group, the “Scorpions.”57 Secret Army documents had long noted this involvement: “[T]he circumstances surrounding the death are further complicated due to Mowhoush being interrogated and reportedly beaten by members of a Special Forces team and other government agency (OGA) employees two days earlier.”58 And jurors heard Welshofer’s own tearful testimony – that he was trying to be a loyal soldier, and trying to do his job.59 Although he was originally charged with murder, Welshofer was convicted of lesser charges: negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty.60 That conviction carried a possible sentence of more than three years in prison, but Welshofer received a far more lenient sentence from the Army jury: a written reprimand, a $6,000 fine, and 60 days with movement restricted to his home, base, and church.61 The others implicated in Mowhoush’s death have faced less. Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams and Specialist Jerry Loper, who were present during Mowhoush’s interrogation, were originally charged with murder, but the charges were later dropped. In exchange for testimony against Welshofer, Williams will receive administrative (not criminal) punishment, and Loper will be tried in a summary proceeding rather than a full court martial.62 Another soldier, Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer, had his murder charge dropped as well and may receive nonjudicial punishment.63 No charges have been brought (nor are charges expected to be brought according to law enforcement and intelligence officials) against CIA personnel, and Special Forces Command determined (without public explanation) that none of their personnel were guilty of wrongdoing.64 Major Voss, the officer who commanded

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 9

the Military Intelligence unit responsible for interrogating Mowhoush, was reprimanded for her failure to provide adequate supervision, but she was not charged in the death.65 The commander of the 3rd ACR from 2002-2004 (including the period of Mowhoush’s death) was Colonel David A. Teeples.66 At a preliminary hearing in Welshofer’s case, Teeples testified to his

belief that the sleeping bag technique was approved and effective;67 Teeples was reportedly “reluctant” to press charges against Welshofer, despite the view of military lawyers that Welshofer should be prosecuted.68 Teeples does not appear to have been disciplined in connection with Mowhoush’s death.

Special Forces & the CIA
The involvement of special military forces and members of other governmental agencies in the interrogation and detention of detainees has raised serious concerns regarding proper investigative procedures and accountability. The Army’s CID has jurisdiction over crimes committed by all U.S. Army personnel; CID’s Field Investigative Units are trained to conduct investigations that implicate classified activities,69 and individual detachments have investigated deaths in which Special Forces personnel played a part.70 Yet it appears that alternative investigative procedures have sometimes been used where Special Forces were involved. For example, in one case involving the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Special Forces Group, commanders conducted their own investigation and failed to inform CID of the death.71 When CID did learn of the incident, it simply reviewed and approved the pre-existing inquiry – an inquiry that itself remains classified. 72 Brigadier General Richard Formica completed an investigation into allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq by Special Forces personnel, but the Army has also classified the resulting report, refusing to release even a summary of its findings.73 Deaths in which the CIA has been implicated (alone or jointly with Army Special Forces or Navy SEALS) have presented additional problems.74 Such deaths are required to be investigated by the CIA Inspector General and, if cause exists, referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.75 Yet while five of the deaths in custody analyzed by Human Rights First appear to involve the CIA,76 only a contract worker associated with the CIA has to date faced criminal charges for his role in the death of detainees. Further, the CIA has sought to keep closed the courts-martial of Army personnel where CIA officers may be implicated,77 and has in military autopsies classified the circumstances of the death.78 These efforts have encumbered the investigation and prosecution of both CIA officials and military personnel.79 Thus, for example, in the military trial of Navy SEAL Lt. Andrew Ledford, charged in connection with the death of detainee Manadel al-Jamadi, CIA representatives protested questions regarding the position of al-Jamadi’s body when he died, and the role of water in al-Jamadi’s interrogation; questions by defense lawyers were often prohibited as a result. 80 Finally, press reports suggest, the Department of Justice is unlikely to bring criminal charges against CIA employees for cases involving the death, torture, or other abuse of detainees, including the deaths of al-Jamadi and General Abed Hamed Mowhoush and a detainee whose name has not been made public and who died of hypothermia at a CIA-run detention center in Afghanistan.81 The Department of Justice has not made the reasons for its decisions known. Reports of internal efforts at the CIA to address detainee abuse by agents are less than encouraging. After completing a review in spring 2004 of CIA detention and interrogation procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq, the CIA Inspector General made 10 recommendations for changes, including more safeguards against abuse, to CIA Director Porter Goss. 82 Eight of the 10 have been “accepted,” 83 but the changes did not apparently prevent consideration of a proposal for handling deaths of detainees in CIA custody. According to the Washington Post: “One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body.”84

A Human Rights First Report

10 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Abdul Jameel
Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Jameel, a former officer in the Iraqi army, was detained at a Forward Operating Base near Al Asad, Iraq, and died there on January 9, 2004.85 He was 47 years old.86 According to Pentagon documents obtained by the Denver Post, Jameel had been kept in isolation with his arms chained to a pipe in the ceiling.87 During an interrogation by Army Special Forces soldiers, he allegedly lunged and grabbed the shirt of one soldier and was then beaten.88 Three days later, Jameel escaped from his cell, but was recaptured.89 During a subsequent interrogation session, Jameel refused his interrogators’ orders to stay quiet, and was put in a “stress position”: he was tied by his hands to the top of his cell door, then gagged. 90 Within five minutes, he was dead.91 A “senior Army legal official” admitted that Jameel had been “lifted to his feet by a baton held to his throat,” causing a throat injury that “contributed” to his death.92 According to an autopsy conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s Office and reviewed by Human Rights First, Jameel’s death was a homicide caused by “Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia”93 – a lack of oxygen.94 The autopsy found “[t]he severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to [his] death.”95 The autopsy detailed evidence of additional abuse Jameel suffered: a fractured and bleeding throat, more than a dozen fractured ribs, internal bleeding, and numerous lacerations and contusions all over his body.96 Among the findings of the Army’s criminal investigators was that Jameel “was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless.”97 Criminal investigators found probable cause to recommend prosecution of 11 soldiers – including members of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (the same Regiment involved in the death of Iraqi Major General Mowhoush), as well as the Special Forces personnel – for charges including negligent homicide, assault, and lying to investigators.98 The investigation into Jameel’s death also examined CIA involvement.99 The Army Special Forces Command declined to follow the recommendations, and investigation findings of any CIA involvement have not been publicly released.100 Upon reviewing the case, Army commanders decided that the soldiers’ actions were at all points a lawful response to Jameel’s “misconduct.”101 The reasons for the commanders’ decisions are unclear. The same person, Colonel David A. Teeples, was commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry at the time of Jameel’s death and also that of Iraqi Major General Abed Mowoush.102 Because the killing was found to be justified, no disciplinary action was taken.103

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Fashad Mohammed
The Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s report on autopsy number ME 04-309 reads: “This approximately 27 year-old male civilian, presumed Iraqi national, died in US custody approximately 72 hours after being apprehended. By report, physical force was required during his initial apprehension during a raid. During his confinement, he was hooded, sleep deprived, and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood.”104 Although the autopsy described “multiple minor injuries, abrasions and contusions” and “blunt force trauma and positional asphyxia,”105 it found both the cause of death and manner of death “undetermined.”106 The autopsy, which was not conducted until three weeks after Mohammed’s death,107 is a drier version of accounts pieced together in subsequent inquiries.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 11

Mohammed was apparently apprehended by members of Navy SEAL Team 7, which was operating with the CIA, in northern Iraq on or about April 2, 2004.108 The SEALS then brought Mohammed to an Army base outside Mosul.109 The Navy SEALS who interrogated Mohammed subjected him to hooding, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures—all methods that deviate from the techniques described in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation FM 34-52, but that were approved by the Secretary of Defense for use at Guantanamo,110 and later authorized in part by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez for use in Iraq.111 A Pentagon official relates that after an interrogation, the SEALS let Mohammed sleep. He never woke up.112

We know very little about Mohammed’s last hours and the military has released even less information about its investigation into his death and charges brought against those responsible. The most recent press reports indicate that as many as three Navy SEALS were charged with abusing Mohammed; charges included assault with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, assault with a dangerous weapon, maltreatment of detainees, obstruction of justice, and dereliction of duty. Murder or manslaughter charges were not brought, reportedly because of lack of evidence.113 Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 26, 2006 for an update on the status and outcome of any prosecutions in Mohammed’s case; as of February 10, 2006 we had received no response.

PROFILE: HOMICIDE Asphyxia is what he died from – as in a crucifixion.
Dr. Michael Baden, Chief Forensic Pathologist, New York State Police, giving his opinion of the cause of Manadel 114 al-Jamadi’s death

Manadel al-Jamadi
According to press accounts, Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi citizen of unknown age, was captured and tortured to death in Abu Ghraib by Navy SEALS and CIA personnel working closely together; he died on November 4, 2003.115 The SEAL and CIA team that captured al-Jamadi took turns punching, kicking and striking him with their rifles after he was detained in a small area in the Navy camp at Baghdad International Airport known as the “Romper Room.”116 A CIA security guard later told CIA investigators that after al-Jamadi was stripped and doused with water a CIA interrogator threatened him, saying: “I’m going to barbecue you if you don’t tell me the information.”117 A Navy SEAL reported that the CIA interrogator leaned into alJamadi’s chest with his forearm, and found a pressure point, causing al-Jamadi to moan in pain.118 A government report states that another CIA security guard “recalled al-Jamadi saying, ‘I’m dying. I’m dying,’ translated by the interpreter, to which the interrogator replied, ‘I don’t care,’ and, ‘You’ll be wishing you were dying.’”119 When al-Jamadi was taken to Abu Ghraib, he was not entered on the prison rolls – he was a “ghost” detainee.120 The intelligence agents took him to the shower room where, military police testified, a non-covert CIA interrogator (identified as Mark Swanner by The New Yorker) ordered them to shackle al-Jamadi to a window about five feet from the floor, in Charles Graner next to the corpse of a posture known as Manadel al-Jamadi the “Palestinian hanging,” making it impossible for him to kneel or sit without hanging from his arms in pain.121 Less than one hour later, Swanner summoned guards to re-position al-Jamadi, claiming the detainee was not cooperating.122 When the guards arrived they found al-Jamadi’s corpse, hooded with a sandbag and with his arms handcuffed behind his back and still shackled to the window – which was now above his head.123 According to one of the guards, blood gushed from al-Jamadi’s mouth as the guards released him and his arms were almost coming out of their sockets.124 A CIA supervisor requested that al-

A Human Rights First Report

12 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

Jamadi’s body be held overnight and stated that he would call Washington about the incident.125 The next morning the “body was removed from Abu Ghraib on a litter, to make it appear as if he were only ill, so as not to draw the attention of the Iraqi guards and detainees.”126 Al-Jamadi’s death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, after photographs of prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released.127 U.S. forces did not release al-Jamadi’s body to the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”) until February 11, 2004, more than three months after his death.128 The ICRC delivered the body to Baghdad’s mortuary the same day, but one expert from Baghdad’s main forensic medico-legal institute said that the refrigeration of al-Jamadi’s body for that period made it difficult for the Iraqis to establish the real cause of death by autopsy.129 An autopsy conducted by the U.S. military five days after al-Jamadi’s death had found that the cause of death was “Blunt Force Injuries Complicated by Compromised Respiration.”130 The autopsy report noted al-Jamadi had six broken ribs and a gunshot wound to the spleen.131 A medical examiner who later examined the autopsy report at the request of a lawyer for one of the SEALS and was informed of alJamadi’s shackling position gave the opinion that the likely cause of his death was the hanging position, rather than beatings inflicted prior to his arrival at Abu Ghraib.132 According to Dr. Michael Baden, New York State police chief forensic pathologist, “asphyxia is what he died from – as in a crucifixion.”133 Dr. Edmund Donahue, the president of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, who reviewed the autopsy at the request of National Public Radio, gave a similar opinion, saying: “When you combine [the hanging

position] with having a hood over your head and having the broken ribs, it’s fairly clear that this death was caused by asphyxia because he couldn’t breathe properly.”134 During a later court martial proceeding, one Navy SEAL testified that he and his fellow SEALS were not trained to deal with Iraqi prisoners.135 Although Navy lawyers testified they trained the SEALS to treat detainees humanely, one SEAL stated: “The briefing I remember is that these [prisoners] did not fall under the Geneva Convention because they were not enemy combatants.”136 Of the 10 Navy personnel – 9 SEALS and one sailor – accused by Navy prosecutors of being involved in alJamadi’s death,137 nine were given nonjudicial punishment.138 In contrast to a general court martial, which is a criminal felony conviction, nonjudicial or administrative punishment is usually imposed by an accused’s commanding officer for minor disciplinary offenses, and does not include significant jail time.139 The only person formally prosecuted in the case was Navy SEAL Lieutenant Andrew K. Ledford, the commander of the SEAL platoon, who was charged with dereliction of duty, assault, making a false statement to investigators, and conduct unbecoming an officer.140 At court-martial, Ledford was acquitted of all charges.141 The decision whether to prosecute CIA personnel for possible wrongdoing is pending,142 but government officials have indicated that charges are unlikely to be brought.143 The interrogator, Mark Swanner, continues to work for the CIA.144 To date, no U.S. official has been punished criminally in connection with al-Jamadi’s death. Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 26, 2006 the status of the al-Jamadi case; as of February 10, we had received no response.

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Nagem Sadoon Hatab
Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed in U.S. custody at a Marine-run temporary holding camp close to Nasiriyah.145 Soon after his arrival at the camp in June 2003, a number of Marines beat Hatab,146 including allegedly “karate-kicking” him while he stood handcuffed and hooded.147 A day later, Hatab reportedly developed severe diarrhea, and was covered in feces.148 Once U.S. forces discovered his condition, Hatab was stripped and examined by a medic, who thought that Hatab might be faking sickness.149 At the base commander’s order, a clerk with no training in handling prisoners dragged Hatab by his neck to an outdoor holding area, to make room for a new prisoner.150 The clerk later testified to the ease with which he was able to drag the prisoner: Hatab’s body, covered by sweat and his own feces, slid over the sand.151 Hatab was then left on the ground, uncovered and exposed in the heat of the sun. He was found dead sometime after

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 13

midnight. 152 A U.S. Army medical examiner’s autopsy of Hatab found that he had died of strangulation – a victim of homicide.153 The autopsy also found that six of Hatab’s ribs were broken and his back, buttocks, legs and knees covered with bruises.154 The guards at the detention center to which Hatab had been brought were ill-prepared for their duty at best. The previous commander of the facility, Major William Vickers, would later testify that none of the approximately 30 Marines at the camp had been trained to run a jail before their assignment: “Not then or even after.”155 Most were reservists and according to Major Vickers’ testimony, the Marines, members of the 2nd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, were assigned to the guard role after Army and other Marine units refused it.156 The base commander at the time, Major Clarke Paulus, had been in that position for a week before Hatab’s death, and had spent only a day observing the prison operations before taking command.157 His predecessor, Major Vickers, added that the camp had originally been designated a temporary holding facility, where Marines would interrogate prisoners for a day or two before their release or transfer.158 Instead, prisoners were kept for longer, resulting in overcrowding and a strain on guards.159 The treatment of Hatab’s body did not improve after his death. A Navy surgeon, Dr. Ray Santos, testified that when Hatab’s body arrived at the morgue: “It kept slipping from my hands so I did drop it several times.”160 The U.S. Army Medical Examiner, Colonel Kathleen Ingwersen, who performed the autopsy, reportedly acknowledged that Hatab’s body had undergone decomposition because it was stored in an unrefrigerated drawer before the autopsy.161 In fact, testimony at a later court martial indicated that a container of Hatab’s internal organs was left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Iraqi heat, the organs were destroyed.162 Hatab’s ribcage and part of his larynx were later found in medical labs in Washington, D.C. and Germany, due to what the Medical Examiner, Colonel Ingwersen, described as a “miscommunication” with her assistant.163 Hatab’s hyoid bone – a U-shaped throat bone located at the base of the tongue164 – was never found,165 and Colonel Ingwersen testified that she couldn’t recall whether she removed the bone from the body during the autopsy or not.166 The bone was a key piece of evidence, because it supported the Army Medical Examiner’s finding that Hatab died of strangulation.167

Although eight Marines were initially charged in the case, only two were actually court-martialed.168 Major Paulus, who ordered Hatab dragged by his neck and permitted him to lie untreated in the sun, was originally charged with a number of offenses, including negligent homicide, while Sergeant Gary P. Pittman was charged with five counts of assault for beating prisoners (including Hatab) and two counts of dereliction of duty.169 Neither was sentenced to any prison time, however, in part because of the lax handling of the medical evidence.170 The judge in the court martial proceedings, Colonel Robert Chester, ruled that the autopsy findings and other medical evidence – evidence which was also Hatab’s remains – could not be considered, because it had been lost or destroyed and thus could not be examined by the defense.171 The judge’s decision eliminated the possibility that prosecutors could win conviction on the most serious charges they had brought. In addition, at Sergeant Pittman’s court martial, prosecutors acknowledged that the military had either lost or destroyed photos of Hatab being interrogated in the days before his death.172 As a result, prosecutors were unable to win conviction on any charges relating to culpability for Hatab’s death: Paulus was convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment for ordering a subordinate to drag Hatab by the neck, and for allowing Hatab to remain unmonitored in the sun.173 Sergeant Pittman was acquitted of abusing Hatab, though he was sentenced for assaulting other detainees.174 Charges against Lance Corporal Christian Hernandez (who dragged Hatab by the neck), including negligent homicide, were dropped, and the cases against the other Marines similarly did not proceed to trial.175 One Marine, William Roy, accepted a reduction in rank from a lance corporal to a private first class in exchange for his testimony. But because the demotion was a non-judicial punishment, and the basis for it is not public, the precise contours of his culpability remain unclear.176

A Human Rights First Report

14 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Abdul Wali
On June 18, 2003, Abdul Wali turned himself in to soldiers at an Army firebase in Asadabad, Afghanistan, after he learned they were looking for him.177 The son of the governor of the province where the base is located accompanied Wali and initially acted as his interpreter during interrogation.178 According to this interpreter, the U.S. interrogator was so aggressive in questioning Wali that the interpreter left in disgust.179 Three days later, on June 21, Wali was dead.180 The man who interrogated Abdul Wali was not a soldier; David Passaro was a former Army Ranger who had been hired as a civilian contractor by the CIA.181 Reportedly convinced that Wali had information about weapons that would be used to attack U.S. personnel, Passaro questioned Wali on June 19 and 20.182 At each of these sessions, the U.S. government alleges, Passaro beat Wali, both with his hands and with a flashlight.183 According to prosecutors, Passaro kicked Wali in the groin “on at least one occasion.”184 Wali, who apparently suffered from poor health, did not survive to see a third such interrogation.185 Army criminal investigators looked into Wali’s death, found that no Army personnel were implicated and referred the case to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution of Passaro.186 In June 2004, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Passaro on four counts of assault.187 As of February 2006, the case against Passaro was moving toward trial, with the government and defense engaged in arguments about the defenses that would be allowed, and which witnesses would testify in the proceedings.188 According to his lawyer, Passaro’s position at trial will be that abusive questioning techniques were not criminal because they were consistent with authorized interrogation policies, and that his actions were legally justified under a series of Executive Branch memos that appear to permit aggressive interrogation techniques.189 No one has been charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with Wali’s death. Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 26, 2006 for any update on the status of Wali’s case; as of February 10, 2006 we had received no response.

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Habibullah
Habibullah died on the night of December 3, 2002, because of abuses inflicted upon him by U.S. soldiers at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan.190 Habibullah was captured by an Afghan warlord and, according to detailed reporting by the New York Times, was brought to the Bagram detention facility on the last day of November, 2002.191 Members of the 377th Military Police Company at that facility reportedly subjected detainees held at the base to peroneal strikes –a knee strike aimed at a cluster of nerves on the side of the thigh, meant to quickly disable an escaping or resistant prisoner.192 One soldier stated that he gave Habibullah five peroneal strikes for being “noncompliant and combative.”193 Immediately upon his arrival, Habibullah was placed in an isolation cell and shackled to the ceiling by his wrists.194 During one interrogation, an interrogator allowed him to sit on the floor because his knees would not bend enough for him to sit on a chair; as Habibullah coughed up phlegm, soldiers laughed at his distress.195 One day later, Habibullah was found hanging from the ceiling and unresponsive.196 One soldier thought that he felt the almost-incapacitated prisoner spit on him; the soldier yelled and began beating Habibullah while he was still chained to the ceiling.197 The next time anyone checked on Habibullah, he was dead.198 The U.S.-conducted autopsy found that Habibullah had died of an embolism – a blood clot, almost certainly the product of the repeated beatings, had traveled through

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 15

his bloodstream and clogged the arteries leading to his lungs;199 the autopsy determined the manner of death to be homicide.200 The Army Criminal Investigation Command looked into the death, and initially recommended closing the case.201 According to criminal investigators’ findings it was impossible to determine who was responsible for Habibullah’s injuries because so many were involved.202 Investigators also failed to maintain critical evidence in the case. A sample of Habibullah’s blood was kept in the butter dish of investigators’ office refrigerator until the office was closed.203 Press interest in Habibullah’s death—and that of Dilawar, another detainee who died a week later at the same facility—sparked renewed progress in the criminal investigation, resulting in charges against the soldiers allegedly responsible.204 In October 2004, almost two years after Habibullah’s death, criminal investigators recommended that charges be brought against 27 soldiers for their roles in the death of Dilawar and against 15 of the same soldiers for the death of Habibullah, including “two captains, the military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation group, and the reservist commander of the military police guards.”205 The recommended charges ranged from dereliction of duty to involuntary manslaughter.206 The soldiers included members of the 377th Military Police Company and interrogators from the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.207 To date, less than half of the soldiers against whom charges were recommended –12 out of 27– have

actually been prosecuted for their roles in the deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar.208 Eleven cases have been concluded.209 Apart from demotions and some discharges, only four of these individuals were given sentences that included confinement, and the sentences ranged from 60 days to five months.210 In January 2006, after a pre-trial inquiry, the Army dropped its criminal case against the only officer charged (with lying to investigators and dereliction of duties) in connection with the deaths, Military Police Captain Christopher M. Beiring.211 Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Berg, the Army judge who oversaw the pretrial inquiry, criticized the prosecution for not presenting sufficient evidence to support their charges against him.212 Berg added that the military policy company had not been adequately trained before deployment for its mission at the Bagram detention facility: 213 “Little of the training focused on the actual mission that the 377th [Military Police Company] anticipated that it would assume upon arrival in theater . . . . Much of the 377th’s training was described as ‘notional’ in that soldiers were asked to imagine or pretend that they had the proper equipment for training exercises.”214 As of January 2006, the trial of Sergeant Alan J. Driver is pending.215 Notably, no soldier has yet been charged with murder or voluntary manslaughter for either of the deaths of Habibullah or Dilawar.216

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Dilawar
Dilawar was the second detainee killed in a week at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan.217 A 22-yearold Afghan citizen whose case similarly became the focus of New York Times investigative reports, Dilawar was driving his taxi past U.S. Camp Salerno when he was stopped and his car searched by a local Afghan commander working with the Americans.218 Dilawar was then taken into custody as a suspect in a rocket attack.219 The commander of the Afghan soldiers was later suspected of having launched the attack himself.220 Dilawar was brought to the Bagram detention facility on December 5, 2002.221 The 122-pound taxi driver was labeled a “noncompliant” detainee by U.S. soldiers, and was subjected to the same kind of peroneal strikes that eventually contributed to the death of Habibullah.222 During one of the beatings by soldiers, Dilawar cried “Allah” when he was hit.223 According to a U.S. soldier, U.S. military personnel found these cries funny and hit Dilawar repeatedly to hear him cry out.224 Over a 24hour period, one soldier estimated that Dilawar was

Dilawar

A Human Rights First Report

16 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

struck over 100 times by soldiers.225 According to an interpreter, during his fourth interrogation session on December 8, Dilawar was unable to comply with commands to keep his hands above his head, leading one soldier to push his hands back up.226 During the same interrogation, two interrogators shoved Dilawar against a wall when he was unable to sit in a “chair” position against the walls because of the injuries to his legs.227 At the end of the interrogation, one of the soldiers ordered Dilawar to be chained to the ceiling.228 During his final interrogation session on December 10, Dilawar could not obey the orders the interrogators gave him to stand in stress positions and kneel.229 Dilawar died that day.230 The official autopsy, conducted three days after his death, showed that Dilawar’s legs had suffered “extensive muscle breakdown and grossly visible necrosis with focal crumbling of the tissue.” 231 The damage was “nearly circumferential,” from below the skin down to the bone. The manner of death was found to be homicide.232 Despite this conclusion, the military initially said that Dilawar had died of natural causes.233 Criminal investigation into his death, and that of Habibullah had been at a “virtual standstill,”234 and only

accelerated after the New York Times reported in new detail how both men died in U.S. custody.235 The renewed investigation also cast into stark relief the flaws in the original investigative efforts: agents had not interviewed the commanders of the soldiers responsible for the deaths, failed to interview an interrogator who had witnessed most of Dilawar’s questioning during his detention, and mishandled critical evidence.236 It was only during the subsequent investigation – and at the individual initiative of at least one soldier – that investigators finally took statements.237 The statements revealed that witnesses who had previously been overlooked had crucial information, including an eyewitness account of an interrogator apparently choking Dilawar by pulling on his hood, and that “most [soldiers at the base] were convinced that [Dilawar] was innocent.”238 The status of prosecutions of the soldiers responsible for Dilawar’s death is described above.

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi
Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi, an Iraqi actor, was shot and killed in his home in Baghdad early in the morning of May 17, 2004.239 According to his family, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers raided the house by crashing through the gate in a Humvee.240 Al-Bawi’s brother, uncle, and nephew were bound and held on their knees and the women and children were kept in the living room while he was interrogated in a bedroom.241 While they were waiting, the family heard shots ring out.242 The troops left an hour after they arrived.243 According to the family, the troops took with them a robed and hooded man, and told the family that they were arresting al-Bawi.244 But when the family went into the room where he had been questioned, they found al-Bawi’s corpse, stuffed behind a refrigerator and hidden under a mattress.245 He had been shot five times: in the leg, throat, armpit, and chest.246 An administrative investigation247 into al-Bawi’s death found the shooting to be justified.248 The military reported in its initial public statements about the shooting that al-Bawi had grabbed a U.S. soldier’s pistol, switched the safety off, and the soldier then fired five shots in selfdefense.249 But the military’s statements became the subject of dispute. An Iraqi medical examiner who examined the body found that the shots had been fired from two different directions; alBawi’s family reported that Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi’s they found two kinds of son holds a portrait of his father casings in the room where he died.250 Army criminal investigators only began their investigation a month after al-Bawi’s death, when an investigation was requested by the military’s Detainee Assessment Task Force, based on a Washington Post article detailing al-

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 17

Bawi’s family’s allegations.251 Despite the contradictions between the findings of the administrative investigation and allegations by al-Bawi’s family and the medical examiner,252 the criminal investigating agent spent a scant four hours reviewing the findings of the administrative investigation, did not attempt any independent verification, and then forwarded the case for closure.253 News reports detailing the family’s allegations were included in the file, but the only change the criminal investigator made to the initial probe was to correct the spelling of al-Bawi’s name.254 The criminal probe restated the conclusion that the killing was justified and recommended no charges be brought.255 The lack of any independent investigation into al-Bawi’s family’s allegations – or any investigation beyond a

review of the administrative findings – is troubling. At a minimum, there is a disconnect between the administrative finding that one soldier fired all the shots with one weapon,256 and the family’s allegations that al-Bawi was shot from two directions with two different calibers of bullet.257 Al-Bawi’s family reportedly was offered $1,500 in compensation by military officials, conditioned on their agreeing that the United States has no responsibility for al-Bawi’s death.258 The family has refused the money.259

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Obeed Hethere Radad
Obeed Hethere Radad was shot to death on September 11, 2003, in his detention cell in an American forward operating base in Tikrit, Iraq.260 Both criminal and administrative investigations were conducted into his death.261 The soldier accused of the shooting, Specialist Juba Martino-Poole, stated during the administrative investigation that he had shot Radad without giving any verbal warning because Radad was “fiddling” with his hand restraints and standing close to the wire at the entrance to his cell.262 The administrative investigation found “sufficient cause to believe” Martino-Poole violated the Army’s use of force policy and the base’s particular directives on the use of deadly force with which Radad could be charged; the administrative investigation recommended a criminal investigation be initiated to determine offenses.263 But the investigation also determined that there was inadequate clarity on the use of weapons and force with regard to detainee operations at the base, and noted in particular the lack of any written standard operating procedures.264 The investigation also criticized the location of weapons within the detention facilities, and the insufficient numbers of guards assigned to guard detainees.265 A military lawyer who later reviewed the administrative investigation found it legally insufficient, apparently because it failed to determine what, if any, briefing on the use of force guards received.266 Army criminal investigators were only notified of the death after the administrative investigation concluded.267 And before the criminal investigation was over, Martino-Poole had sought a military discharge in lieu of a court martial for manslaughter.268 MartinoPoole’s commander, Major General Raymond T. Odierno, approved the request for discharge without waiting for criminal investigative agents to conclude their investigation and forward their findings.269 A little more than a week later, criminal investigators found probable cause to charge Martino-Poole with murder.270 The Radad case was reviewed along with all detainee deaths in custody after the revelations at Abu Ghraib, and the reviewer noted flaws in both the criminal and the administrative investigations, but decided against reopening the criminal investigation because “further investigation would not change the outcome.”271 Martino-Poole later accused his commanders of wanting to avoid disclosure of the lax security practices at the base – practices that would likely have come to light in a court martial proceeding.272

A Human Rights First Report

18 — II. Homicides: Death by Torture, Abuse or Force

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Mohammed Sayari
Mohammed Sayari was in the custody of members of the U.S. Army Special Forces when he was killed near an Army firebase on August 28, 2002 in Lwara, Afghanistan.273 According to Army investigative records reviewed by Human Rights First, an Army staff sergeant from the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion who was supporting the Special Forces team was dispatched to the site of the shooting of a “suspected aggressor” on a road just outside the firebase, to take photographs documenting the scene.274 When he arrived, the members of the Special Forces unit told the sergeant they had stopped Sayari’s truck because he had been following them.275 The soldiers ordered the passengers traveling in Sayari’s truck to leave the area and then, they said, they disarmed Sayari.276 According to their later testimony, the soldiers neglected to restrain Sayari’s hands, and left his AK-47 weapon ten feet from him.277 When a soldier turned away for a moment, they said, Sayari lunged for the rifle and managed to point it at the Special Forces soldiers before they shot him in self-defense.278 Sayari’s body was fingerprinted and turned over to his family.279 The Military Intelligence sergeant (whose name is redacted in the records Human Rights First reviewed) then instructed other military personnel to transfer DNA evidence taken at the scene and other photographs to the Bagram Collection Point.280 On September 24, 2002 the captain of the Special Forces group that shot Sayari told the sergeant that a member of the Staff Judge Advocate General’s Corps would be coming as part of the administrative investigation to take statements from Special Forces soldiers involved in the shooting.281 The captain then asked the sergeant for the photographs he had taken.282 After reviewing the photographs, the Special Forces captain told the sergeant to include only certain of the photographs in the investigation and ordered him to delete all the other crime-scene photographs.283 The administrative investigation would eventually find Sayari’s shooting to be justified.284 The following day, the sergeant contacted criminal investigators to report “a possible war crime.”285 According to one criminal investigation agent’s report, the sergeant had not reported his concerns to criminal authorities earlier because he had waited to see the results of the administrative investigation and he had feared for his safety while working with the Special Forces team.286 The sergeant told the agents that several details at the scene made him question the veracity of the Special Forces soldiers’ story. He said that Sayari had been shot five or more times – in the torso and head – but all the entry wounds appeared to be in the back of the body, which made it unlikely that he had been facing the soldiers and pointing his rifle at them when he was shot.287 One of Sayari’s sleeves had brain matter on it, suggesting that his hands were on or over his head when he was shot.288 When the sergeant first arrived, he had noticed that Sayari’s corpse still clutched a set of prayer beads in the right hand, which was inconsistent with the Special Forces soldiers’ report that he had picked up and pointed an assault rifle at them.289 Among the photos that the Special Forces captain instructed the sergeant to delete was one showing Sayari’s right hand clenched around the prayer beads and another depicting bullet holes in Sayari’s back. 290 The AK-47 could not be found.291 Criminal investigators eventually found probable cause to recommend charges of conspiracy and murder against the four members of the Special Forces unit; they also recommended dereliction of duty charges against three of them, and a charge of obstruction of justice against the captain.292 Finally, they recommended that a fifth person, a chief warrant officer, be charged as an accessory after the fact.293 After consultation with their legal advisors, however, commanders decided not to pursue any of the recommended charges in a court martial.294 To date, the only action commanders have taken in response to the criminal investigators’ recommendations is to reprimand the captain for destroying evidence.295 The captain was disciplined – he had inarguably destroyed evidence – but received only a letter of reprimand.296 No further action was taken against the soldiers.297 The commanders who declined to report Sayari’s death – and who later declined to prosecute the soldiers involved – received similar leniency; they have received no disciplinary action for their conduct. Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 for an update on the status of Sayari’s case; as of February 10, 2006, we had received no response.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 19

PROFILE: HOMICIDE

Zaidoun Hassoun
Zaidoun Hassoun, (also known as Zaydoon Fadhil), a 19-year-old Iraqi civilian, and his cousin Marwan were arrested by members of the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division in January 2004 on the streets of Samarra, in Iraq, at or around an 11 p.m. curfew time.298 Army Lieutenant Jack Saville then ordered his platoon to take the two Iraqis to a 10foot-high bridge over the Tigris River and force the two to jump.299 Three soldiers, Sergeant (“Sgt.”) Alexis Rincon, Specialist Terry Bowman and Sgt. Reggie Martinez, complied with the order.300 Saville and Staff Sgt. Tracy Perkins had earlier that night stated that “someone was going to get wet tonight” and “someone is going for a swim.”301 Marwan surfaced and swam to the shore.302 Zaidoun, who had proposed to his fiancée three weeks previously and planned on starting a family once he graduated from high school, did not.303 According to his cousin, he was sucked into the current near an open dam gate and was unable to escape.304 Criminal charges initially filed against Saville alleged that he had also pushed another Iraqi into the Tigris in Balad the previous month.305 The platoon’s three immediate commanders, Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander, Captain Matthew Cunningham, a company commander, and Major Robert Gwinner, the deputy battalion commander, did not report the incident to criminal investigators, based on the assumption that there was no proof Hassoun had drowned.306 Sgt. Irene Cintron, a criminal investigative agent assigned to the case, suspected, however, “that the whole chain of command was lying to [her].”307 During the criminal investigation into Hassoun’s death, agents administered a polygraph test to a member of the squad that allegedly pushed him into the river.308 The soldier told agents that his chain of command had ordered him to deny soldiers had forced Hassoun into the river, and not to cooperate with criminal investigators.309 After the criminal investigation was underway, Lt. Col. Sassaman, the battalion commander, informed Major General Raymond Odierno, the commander of the Fourth Infantry Division, of the truth; soldiers had in fact forced Hassoun to jump into the Tigris.310 According to the official investigative report, which Human Rights First reviewed, the officer who conducted a subsequent Article 32 hearing—analogous to a grand jury proceeding311 – also found the commanders had “coach[ed]” their soldiers on what to say to the investigating agents.312 The three commanders – Lt. Col. Sassaman, Captain Cunningham, and Major Gwinner – obtained grants of immunity from prosecution, and admitted at the soldiers’ trial that the allegations were true.313
Zaidoun Hassoun The commanders testified that they thought the investigation into Hassoun’s death was the result of “a personal vendetta” between Sassaman and the brigade commander, motivated by personal antipathy and jealousy.314 They also maintained their belief that Hassoun had not actually drowned as a justification for their refusal to cooperate with investigators; Cunningham protested that “[they] were not covering up anything that injured anybody.”315 Saville plead guilty to a reduced charge of assault and received 45 days in prison and Perkins was convicted of the same charge and sentenced to six months.316 Two other soldiers, Sergeant Reggie Martinez (originally charged with involuntary manslaughter) and Sergeant Terry Bowman (originally charged with assault), received non-judicial punishment.317 The three commanders received reprimands for obstruction of justice but were not relieved of their command.318

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 21

III. Death by Officially Unknown, “Natural” or Other Causes
The autopsy findings in this 27-year-old man seem insufficient to explain his death. The fact that they seem to have found pulmonary edema, water in the lungs, is very unusual in a man of this age without heart disease. The available information is insufficient to explain his death. A full investigation report that describes the circumstances preceding his death and the manner in which the body was found shortly before any attempt at resuscitation is needed to explain the cause of death and to rule out a homicide which seems more likely than not in a 27-year-old man who suddenly died in captivity.
Dr. Steven Miles Professor and Bioethicist, University of Minnesota Medical School on autopsy of 319 Fashad Mohamed, died in U.S. custody, April 5, 2004

For close to half of the deaths Human Rights First has analyzed – 48 out of 98 – the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced.320 The military classified another 15 deaths as due to natural causes and one as accidental. But a significant number of all of these deaths occurred under suspicious circumstances and may more appropriately be considered homicides themselves; 17% of the deaths in which the official cause of death is unknown or due to natural causes either followed severe injuries consistent with, or occurred in circumstances suggesting, physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention.321 This chapter briefly reviews the facts of some of these cases and the consequences – or not – for those involved. Given the passage of time since each of these deaths, and flaws in the investigations that have already taken place, it is now unlikely that the facts of their deaths will ever be known. If there has been wrongdoing, no one will be punished.

P R O F I L E : U N D E T E R M I N ED C A U S E [Bringing in an Iraqi physician to treat detainees] would decrease the perception of our involvement or cover-up in events similar to this.
Department of the Army, 101st Airborne Division, Administrative Investigation into the Death of Abu 322 Malik Kenami

Abu Malik Kenami
Abu Malik Kenami (also referred to as Abdureda Lafta Abdul Kareem), a 44-year-old Iraqi man, died on December 9, 2003, in a U.S. detention facility in Mosul, Iraq.323 According to the findings of an administrative investigation, Kenami had arrived at the facility four days earlier, and according to the soldiers who interrogated him upon his arrival, he said he did not suffer from any pre-existing medical conditions.324 On the night of December 8, Kenami allegedly talked out loud in the presence of guards, and tried to look out

A Human Rights First Report

22 — III. Death by Officially Unkown, “Natural” or Other Causes

from underneath his hood to see what was happening.325 That earned him what had become a standard form of punishment: “up and downs” – an exercise in which detainees were made to stand up, then sit down, over and over again for periods of up to twenty minutes.326 Kenami had been subjected repeatedly to “up and downs” during his detention, but this night turned out to be different.327 Following the forced workout, soldiers flexicuffed Kenami’s hands behind his back and covered his head with a sandbag hood.328 Kenami was then ordered to lie down among other detainees in his overcrowded cell; built for 30 prisoners, it housed 66.329 When a guard attempted to rouse the prisoners in the morning, Kenami, still bound and hooded, was dead.330 The Army’s initial criminal investigation into Kenami’s death could not determine the cause of death because no autopsy was ever conducted.331 It was only five months later, after the revelations from Abu Ghraib, that the Army reviewed this case and it became clear how troubling the original criminal investigation had been.332 In the words of the military police forensic science officer who reviewed the initial criminal investigation: “it was weak in Thoroughness and Timeliness.”333 In addition to the lack of an autopsy, the review determined that important interviews were not conducted of the interrogators, medics, or detainees present at the scene of the death, and that key details were omitted from the report.334 The file “[did] not mention the presence, or lack of, signs of a struggle, or of blood or body fluids,” “the crime scene sketch… [did] not document where guard personnel found the deceased,” and “records of medical treatment of the deceased were not collected and reviewed.”335 The Army’s administrative investigation had recommended that an Iraqi physician be brought in to treat the detainees, noting that among other benefits, “[i]t would [also] decrease the perception of our involvement or cover-up in events like these.”336 According to military records made public to date, the cause of Kenami’s death remains officially undetermined.337 But there could be a more troubling conclusion. Dr. Steven Miles is a professor and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, who has reviewed the Army’s records related to Kenami’s death. Kenami’s body “had bloodshot eyes, lacerations on his wrists from the plastic ties, unexplained bruises on his abdomen and a fresh bruised laceration on the back of his head,” Miles explains, expressing particular concern that “Army investigators noted that the body did not have defensive bruises on his arms, an odd notation given that a

man cannot raise bound arms in defense.” 338 Based on his analysis, Dr. Miles found: “It is likely that Mr. Kenami suffocated because of how he was restrained, hooded and positioned. Positional asphyxia looks just like death by a natural heart attack except for those telltale bloodshot, [conjunctival hemorrhage] eyes.” 339 Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 for comments on Dr. Miles’ findings; as of February 10, 2006, we had received no response. The Army has taken no punitive or disciplinary action in the case.340

PROFILE: UNKNOWN CAUSE

Dilar Dababa
Dilar Dababa, an approximately 45-year-old Iraqi civilian detainee, died on June 13, 2003 at Camp Cropper, after being subjected to what press accounts of unreleased Army investigation records describe as “physical and psychological stress” and restraint in a chair during interrogation.341 Military investigation documents cite an autopsy finding that Dababa died from a “hard, fast blow to the head.”342 The Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s autopsy report on Dilar Dababa does not use the same language, but states that “[p]hysical force was required to subdue the detainee, and during the restraining process, his forehead hit the ground.”343 Twelve hours later, he was dead.344 The medical examiner’s autopsy lists the cause of Dababa’s death as a “Closed Head Injury with a Cortical Brain Contusion and Subdural Hematoma.”345 The autopsy describes a litany of injuries in technical detail, and makes clear that Dababa was subjected to physical violence.346 Dababa’s body was covered with at least 22 bruises,347 and at least 50 abrasions.348 His head and neck suffering the most significant abuse, resulting in hemorrhaging throughout his brain.349 He also had a fractured rib.350 A military official stated in May 2004 that Army criminal investigators were looking into Dababa’s death, but there has been no documentation of any charges being brought against those responsible for the death.351 The military has not publicly provided an official cause of death. Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 for the status of any investigation or prosecution in Dababa’s case; as of February 10, 2006 we had received no response.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 23

P R O F I L E : U N D E T E R M I N ED C A U S E

P R O F I L E : N A T U R A L C A U SE

Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson al-Zubaidy (Hasson)
All that is known about Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson alZubaidy (Hasson) is his name, his identification number and the fact that he died in Iraq, at Camp Bucca, some time between April and September 2003.352 His death went officially unnoticed until nearly a year after it happened, 353 when Army investigators conducted a review of all detainee deaths following the public Abu Ghraib scandal.354 Despite later attempts to determine what happened to Hasson – including when and how he died – investigators were only able to determine that Hasson had been treated on board a U.S. Navy hospital ship.355 In the end, investigators closed the Hasson case without being able to determine whether his death was due to natural causes or homicide.356 The investigators’ report notes that inadequate record-keeping made it impossible for them to learn anything more: “All efforts disclosed there as [sic] virtually no documentation in reference to Mr. HASSON’s manner, cause, or circumstances of death.”357 A U.S. Mortuary Affairs officer told an investigator that “the documentation on deceased Detainees was very limited . . . the majority of the time prior to earlier this year [2004], when the Mortuary received the remains of a deceased Detainee they would only know that the deceased was a detainee, and would not have any other info on the remains, so they would have a list of the remains as unknown John Doe.”358

Nasef Ibrahim
Nasef Ibrahim was 63 at the time of his death of what an initial autopsy report called “atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.” He died at Abu Ghraib in January 2004 – a death the Army attributes to natural causes.359 Army criminal investigators on the Nasef Ibrahim case attended the autopsy and interviewed a number of soldiers who stated that Ibrahim’s son, detained with him, brought his collapse to the attention of prison guards.360 After the special agent in charge determined that pursuing the case further would be of little value, and that remaining leads were not significant, the criminal investigation was closed.361 The case was re-examined on May 19, 2004, as part of the Army’s review of detainee death and abuse cases following the revelations from Abu Ghraib. This time, the Army found several grounds for criticism. The initial investigation had not included a visit to the scene of the death, interviews of the witnesses who found the victim, or any “effort … to interview the alleged … son of the victim who [was] reportedly at the prison at the time of death.”362 Ibrahim’s son, who was with him when he died, says that his father’s death came only after his father suffered extensive abuse. 363 The son alleges that the abuses Ibrahim suffered included being beaten, menaced by dogs, repeatedly doused with cold water during the height of winter, being left naked outside for days and deprived of food to the point of fainting, and left on his stomach with hands tied above his head for hours.364 The May 2004 Army review indicated that “[t]he investigation has not yet received the final autopsy report.”365 The May review asked that a “supplemental ROI”—an additional report of investigation—be submitted as soon as the final autopsy was received.366 Government documents to date regarding the investigation reviewed by Human Rights First do not indicate whether this request was ever acted upon, or if there was any further action taken. Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 for the status of the investigation and any prosecution in Ibrahim’s case; as of February 10, 2006, we had received no response.

A Human Rights First Report

24 — III. Death by Officially Unkown, “Natural” or Other Causes

P R O F I L E : N A T U R A L C A U SE

P R O F I L E : U N D E T E R M I N ED C A U S E

Abed Mohammed Najem
Evidentiary failures pervaded the investigation into the death of Abed Mohammed Najem, who died at Abu Ghraib in August 2003. 367 According to accounts in an original criminal investigation, Najem began a hunger strike on August 6 (during the hottest part of the Iraqi year) and refused food, water, and even his diabetes medication;368 on August 8, Najem took a double dose of his prescription, which appears to have precipitated a fatal heart attack.369 The official criminal investigation found Najem died of “natural causes.”370 But the true cause of death may never be known. Investigators’ later review of the original criminal investigation found that there had been no crime scene examination; no interviews of anyone who was with Najem at the time of his death; no interview of an Iraqi medical professional listed in the original investigation as having pertinent information; no medical records or interviews to substantiate claims that Najem had a preexisting condition; and no copies of autopsy reports. 371

Mohammad Munim al-Izmerly
Mohammad Munim al-Izmerly, a 65-year-old Iraqi chemist, was detained at the Camp Cropper facility, where high-value detainees were kept, in April 2003; his family was allowed to visit him once. 378 Within a few weeks of their visit in January 2004, al-Izmerly was dead.379 The only autopsy ever performed on the body was conducted by the Director of Baghdad Hospital’s Department of Forensics, Dr. Faik Amin Baker, at the request of al-Izmerly’s family. 380 Dr. Baker found that alIzmerly died from a “sudden hit to the back of his head,” and that the cause of the death was blunt trauma. 381 According to Dr. Baker, al-Izmerly “died from a massive blow to the head.”382 U.S. forces retained al-Izmerly’s body for 17 days after his death, and did not inform Army criminal investigators that al-Izmerly had died in U.S. custody until after his body was released.383 Al-Izmerly’s family only learned of his death after U.S. forces delivered his body to an Iraqi hospital, accompanied by a death certificate stating that al-Izmerly had died of a “sudden brainstem compression”; the certificate had no explanation of the compression’s cause. 384 An initial, inconclusive investigation into the case only appears to have been reopened after press accounts of al-Izmerly’s death.385 The Army’s Criminal Investigation Command records have not been publicly released, but according to published reports, the records list al-Izmerly’s death as of “undetermined cause” – because the body was released and no U.S. autopsy was performed.386 Al-Izmerly’s family reportedly filed a wrongful death claim for $10,000, but the Army dismissed it, saying the family had presented no evidence of wrongdoing by U.S. personnel.387 The re-opened investigation into alIzmerly’s death remains pending; to date, no charges have been brought.388 Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigation and any prosecution in al-Izmerly’s case; as of February 10, we had received no response.

PROFILE: UNKNOWN CAUSE

Jassim Al-Obodi
The evidence collected in the investigation into the death of Jassim Al-Obodi on August 3, 2003 is fragmentary.372 Al-Obodi, a 38-year-old Iraqi male, collapsed in Camp Cropper in Iraq, and criminal investigation interviews of other detainees indicate he had “not been feeling well” earlier in the day.373 But no medical records were collected, and no autopsy included in the file; the investigating agent was told that an autopsy would be conducted in the United States, but he apparently failed to request the results.374 When the agent’s supervisor reviewed the file four months later and noticed the omission, the investigator attempted to collect the evidence he had missed, but perhaps due to the delay, could not locate any medical records, the autopsy report, or even a death certificate.375 The investigation results state that it “failed to prove the cause or manner of death”; among other things, investigators could not determine if an autopsy had been done or even to whom the body had been released.376 In a note in the file, the supervisor warned the agent not to “get so focused on your opinion that you want to do a stat and close this [sic] keep you from being thorough.”377

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 25

Death by Heart Attacks or Other Natural Causes
Many prisoners suffered “natural” deaths from heart attacks or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. None of the forensic investigation of these “heart attacks” explores the possibility that these men died of stress-induced heart attacks. Threats, beatings, fear, police interrogation, and arrests are known to cause “homicide by heart attack” or life-threatening heart failure. People with pre-existing heart disease, dehydration, hyperthermia, or exhaustion are especially susceptible. Dr. Steven Miles, Professor and Bioethicist, University of Minnesota Medical School389 The military’s classification of a number of deaths as “natural” gives Human Rights First cause for concern. Of the nearly 100 deaths Human Rights First reviewed, official records indicate more than a fifth involved instances in which heart attack or heart disease was determined to be part or all of the cause of death.390 A number of the victims were surprisingly young: the youngest detainee alleged to have died from heart disease is 25; those apparently dead from heart attacks also include men aged 30, 31, and 43. In part, concern about the accuracy of the “natural causes” label comes from the Army’s track record of having publicly labeled torturerelated deaths “natural,” only to have to revise that assessment when case facts came to light. This was the pattern in the cases, discussed above, of Iraqi Major General Mowhoush, and Afghan detainees Habibullah and Dilawar. Another reason for concern was identified in the recent testimony of Maj. Michael Smith, U.S. Army Forensic Pathologist, on Jan. 19, 2006, during the trial of a junior officer for Mowhoush’s death: “The forensic pathologist, who does not gather information on the circumstances of a death, will invariably miss homicides and suicides. It is incumbent on the pathologist to look at the circumstances of a death. Otherwise, a homicide or a suicide may appear like a natural death. ” Additional concern about the accuracy of deaths deemed “natural causes” flows from the inadequacy of investigations into many of these deaths. Army investigators themselves criticized the investigation into the death of one of these men: a subsequent Army review of the original investigation into the death of Abed Najem, who allegedly died due to heart disease complicated by diabetes, found the investigation “operationally insufficient and administratively insufficient.”391 The reviewers noted that “[t]hough U.S. Army medical personnel alleged the victim had a preexisting medical condition aggravated by a self imposed hunger strike, the investigation did not obtain any medical records or conduct interviews to substantiate the information.”392 Other findings of detainee deaths by “natural causes” have been rejected as outright impossible by surviving families. An Army criminal investigation attributed the death of Nasef Jasem Ibrahim to a compression of the heart often associated with heart attacks.393 Army investigators closed the case finding “[f]urther investigation would be little or no value.”394 But Ibrahim’s son, who was with Ibrahim in detention, was not interviewed as part of the investigation into Ibrahim’s death.395 The family has since alleged in a lawsuit that Ibrahim died as a result of abusive detention conditions.396 Finally, medical personnel told have told military investigators of confusion about the proper standard of care to apply to detainees. According to the Army Inspector General: “Coalition Provisional Authority treatment policy… reportedly dictated that U.S. medical care was only available to detainees to prevent loss of life, limb, or eyesight,” which conflicted with the governing Army regulation.397 The Army Surgeon General found “the use of different classifications for detained personnel (Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW), detainees, Retained Personnel (RP), Civilian Internees (CI)) that, under Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of the Army (DA) guidance, receive different levels care.”398 Similar confusion over novel detainee classifications detached from the Geneva Conventions was a contributing factor in incidents of detainee abuse.

A Human Rights First Report

26 — III. Death by Officially Unkown, “Natural” or Other Causes

PROFILE: UNKNOWN CAUSE

PROFILE: UNKOWN CAUSE

Sher Mohammed Khan
The circumstances of Sher Mohammed Khan’s death remain unclear despite an Army criminal investigation. An Afghan citizen, Khan was arrested on September 24, 2004, in his home in the village of Lakan, Khost province, Afghanistan.399 Khan was subsequently taken to the nearby Salerno Firebase, Sher Mohammed Khan which doubled as a temporary detention facility for U.S. forces, and placed in a holding cell. The next evening, the U.S. military says that he complained to guards that a snake had entered his cell and bitten him; medical personnel examined him, but could find no punctures in the skin, and no action was taken, though a medic was detailed to check on Khan throughout that night. During one such check, the medic found that Khan had stopped breathing.400 Immediately after Khan’s death, Army officials informed the governor of Khost province that a man in U.S. custody had died of a heart attack, an explanation on which Department of Defense officials continued to insist publicly until January 2005, when details of the snake-bite story were reported in the press.401 Adding to the uncertainty, Khan’s family has said that his body was bruised when they picked it up from the Salerno base,402 and alleges that he appeared to have been beaten in custody.403 In January 2005, more than three months after Khan’s death, the commander of the U.S. troops who detained Khan said that he had not yet received a final autopsy report.404 An Army criminal investigation has reportedly found “no signs of abuse or trauma” on Khan’s body; yet neither details of the investigation nor a death certificate listing the official cause of death has been released.405 No disciplinary action has been taken.406 Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigation and any prosecution in Khan’s case; as of February 10, we had received no response.

Jamal Naseer
Jamal Naseer was an 18year-old Afghan soldier who died in the custody of U.S. Special Forces soldiers in March 2003.407 An investigation into his case, begun some nine months after his death, had been closed due to a lack of leads.408 It was reopened when a Los Jamal Naseer Angeles Times journalist investigated the case independently, and wrote a feature-length article about Naseer’s death, alleging that Naseer had been tortured, and that the Afghan government had conducted a detailed investigation into the death.409 According to these accounts, Naseer was arrested by U.S. forces as a result of a complicated series of feuds between the local governor, a warlord, and local military commanders.410 The governor labeled Naseer’s entire unit as Taliban agents, and U.S. forces, acting on the tip, arrested the detachment and imprisoned them in a forward operating base near Gardez – a base named in claims by a number of former detainees interviewed by Human Rights First who have described suffering torture and serious abuse.411 Details of what was done to Naseer are scarce, but seven Afghan soldiers detained with him attest to an extended period of interrogation and abuse.412 According to the soldiers, they were questioned about their relationship with Al Qaeda; when they denied any involvement, they were subjected to severe abuse, including beatings with fists and cables – sometimes while suspended upside-down (allegations that again echo those of other Afghan detainees held by U.S. forces in Gardez).413 They were immersed in cold water and exposed to the winter weather, sometimes being forced to lie in the snow.414 Some say they were electrocuted.415 On a particularly cold day in March, Naseer collapsed and died.416 After Naseer’s death, U.S. commanders allegedly relied on local authorities to transfer the body to his family rather than doing so themselves.417 Afghan police entered a local hospital and ordered an ambulance to go to the U.S. base to get Naseer’s body; according to a doctor, no driver could be found, and the police began to beat the “frightened” medical personnel with their rifle butts.418 Neither U.S. personnel nor the local doctors performed an autopsy; according to a hospital

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 27

administrator, “none of the [local] doctors wanted to look into the cause of death because they were afraid that they would be beaten again by the police.”419 It appears that the only contact any U.S. military personnel had with Naseer’s family was when an officer apologized to Naseer’s brother – who had been detained with Naseer – while the brother was still held at the Gardez facility.420 The Army initiated a criminal investigation based on a tip about the incident, but later determined the tip was “unfounded,” because investigators were unable to find any documentation confirming the death or identifying witnesses.421 Record-keeping remained a problem even after the Los Angeles Times journalist uncovered many previously unknown details – including the existence of a hundred-page investigation into Naseer’s death launched by Afghan military prosecutors, which contained the names of and interviews with several witnesses.422 Army criminal investigators reportedly could not even determine which Special Forces unit had been assigned to the firebase at which Naseer died: according to one criminal investigator, “[t]here are no records. The reporting system is broke across the board.”423 The criminal investigation remains ongoing; no charges have been announced. 424 Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigation and any prosecution in Naseer’s case; as of February 10, we had received no response.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 29

IV. Failures in Investigation
[T]he President has been pretty clear on that, that while we have to do . . . what is necessary to defend the country against terrorists attacks and to win the war on terror, the President has been very clear that we’re going to do that in a way that is consistent with our values. And that is why he’s been very clear that the United States will not torture. The United States will conduct its activities in compliance with law and international obligations . . . . And to the extent people do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be accountability and responsibility.
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley 425 Remarks at Press Briefing, November 2, 2005

There is an old Army aphorism: the unit does what the commander checks . . . . If rigorous adherence to humane treatment had been deemed important, someone wearing stars would have required a thorough, impartial investigation of every death of a detainee.
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, U.S. Army (Ret.) Interview with Human Rights First, October 14, 2005

When conducted according to the military’s own rules, the U.S. Armed Forces’ procedures for investigating the deaths of detainees can effectively uncover the underlying facts through interviews and evidence gathering, and determine whether to seek accountability. But the handling of death cases to date shows internal government mechanisms to secure accountability were badly dysfunctional during a time when torture and abuse in U.S. custody was at its worst.426 Commanders failed to convey that detainee deaths were to be taken seriously.427 Detainee death investigations were fundamentally flawed, and often did not meet the Army’s own regulations. The result has been a pattern of impunity for the worst violations, with punishment for bad behavior too little and too late, and

a still incomplete picture of what really went wrong. This chapter highlights the major investigative failures in the range of cases involving detainee deaths in U.S. custody.428

A Human Rights First Report

30 — IV. Failures In Investigation

How An Investigation Should Work
Military regulations require that the death of a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces must be investigated by the criminal investigation command of the service that held the detainee.429 The Army may conduct two types of investigations in a case involving a detainee death. The first is the mandatory criminal investigation by the Army Criminal Investigation Division.430 The criminal investigation is governed by a detailed set of regulations,431 including rules on how evidence must be gathered and maintained: victims and eyewitnesses should be interviewed within 24 hours of the event, evidence collected within a single duty day,432 and requests for lab-work and coordination with other branches or agencies should be sent out within five duty days.433 Army commanders in the field also have the discretion to order an administrative investigation governed by its own set of regulations.434 An administrative investigation may be conducted before, during, or after, any other investigation, including a criminal one.435 Thus, while a criminal investigation is absolutely required into any death in custody,436 it is not uncommon to see an administrative investigation into that death also. The rules of evidence applicable to trials or other court proceedings generally do not apply to administrative investigations. The Army’s Judge Advocate General Corps provides legal oversight and advice on both criminal and administrative investigations.437 Military commanders have the discretion to determine whether and how an offender should be charged after an investigation, criminal or administrative, has taken place.438 Commanders’ options include taking no action, initiating non-judicial action (which can range from counseling to a reprimand to correctional custody to discharge),439 and referring the case for court martial.440 Punishment by court martial can, depending on the crime, include punitive discharges and confinement, including in certain types of murder cases, life imprisonment or death.441

No Evidence for the Prosecution
I would have directed the death of any detainee to be thoroughly investigated. Any poor medical care should have been thoroughly investigated. The absence of autopsies, body parts, and evidence is really just astonishing.
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, U.S. Army (Ret.) 442 Former Commanding General of the Southeast Regional Army Medical Command

Accountability for detainee deaths caused by criminal misconduct is impossible if evidence is never collected, or not catalogued, stored, or maintained following its collection. For these reasons, the Army’s Manual on Legal Guidance to Commanders emphasizes: “[t]he most difficult form of evidence to collect and preserve is also the most important – testimonial evidence.”443 If evidence is missing or mishandled, it becomes useless in any subsequent judicial proceeding.444 Of critical importance is the autopsy, which was not required until after the revelations of Abu Ghraib, when the Defense Department clarified policies for handling detainee deaths.445 Yet in case after case, before and after the Abu Ghraib photos were released in 2004, Army criminal investigators did not interview those most likely to have witnessed a death, or the events leading up to it. Physical evidence was not collected, and evidence that was collected was at times grossly mishandled. Autopsies were not conducted, and bodies themselves were treated carelessly. In some of these cases, the omissions were not crucial; where agents have

interviewed half a dozen bystanders, any remaining similarly situated witnesses are unlikely to add much new information.446 But in others, deaths that appear to have been caused by abusive detention or interrogation practices were not fully investigated, and charges could not be brought. Human Rights First found 16 cases in which investigators appear to have failed to collect useable evidence and/or did not maintain evidence; flaws ranged from a failure to adequately examine a crime scene to the failure to properly collect and maintain a decedent’s body organs, or weapons used.447 The result of many of these failures: no accountability for U.S. forces responsible for the deaths. The case of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, detailed above, is illustrative. Because of a series of errors, the medical evidence necessary to substantiate the prosecutors’ case for death by strangulation was destroyed or missing: Hatab’s body was allowed to partially decompose before autopsy; some of his organs were destroyed in heat; body parts were stored on different

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 31

continents;448 and a neck bone was never found. Partly as a result of these errors, six of the soldiers initially charged in his death were never court-martialed, and others had their charges reduced or were acquitted.449 In another case, criminal investigators were unable to determine the cause of Abu Malik Kenami’s death because no autopsy was performed; Kenami died after he was cuffed and hooded in a crowded cell.450 Criminal investigators also failed to interview key witnesses, including detainees, other interrogators and medics who treated Kenami.451 As a consequence, no one has been held accountable. In more than a dozen cases, Human Rights First also found a failure to interview key witnesses, ranging from other detainees who witnessed the death, to military personnel with possible knowledge of the circumstances of the death.452 For example, in the case of Nasef Ibrahim, the failure to interview the decedent’s son, who was with his father at his death, 453 meant that investigators never learned that abusive detention practices may have contributed to the death. The investigation into the death of Abed Mohammed Najem was similarly scant; a subsequent Army review itself criticized the original investigators’ failure to interview witnesses to a death allegedly due to hunger strike.454

tions.”461 Once an investigation is completed, the commander must review the case and, in consultation with military lawyers, determine what disciplinary action to take.462 While a criminal investigation is ongoing, a commander may not take actions that could affect or pre-empt the investigation, in order to allow it to reach an unbiased result.463 Indeed: “Commanders are prohibited from interfering with the investigations or impeding the use of investigative techniques.”464

The Impact of Public Attention
After the prolonged public exposure of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division Headquarters initiated an operational review of all detainee abuse and death cases, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were then on file.465 Army criminal investigators assessed the quality of the investigation report based on the file; they did not conduct an independent investigation. The reviewers’ findings were appended to the investigation reports, some of which have been publicly released. Of the 42 criminal or administrative investigations into the detainee deaths Human Rights First reviewed, seven include notes from this operational review.466 Army reviewers found two of the original investigations to be adequate, but identified flaws in the others.467 The reviewers also found eight investigations to be incomplete because autopsy reports had not been included in the original investigation reports.468 It was only after these files were reviewed in May 2004 that autopsy reports were sent for eight deaths that had occurred as far back as August of 2003.469 In July 2004, investigators at the Army Criminal Investigation Division headquarters also reviewed rosters of prison deaths, and discovered what appeared to be four previously unreported deaths.470 They opened investigations into at least two of these deaths, one of which had occurred in 2003471 and the other in April 2004.472 Too often these reviews have come only after public exposure of a death. The fact that the subsequent reviews have repeatedly shown circumstances worse than those originally found raises serious questions about the quality of investigative practice when the cameras are not focused squarely upon investigations. And they raise questions about the validity of the investigations into more than 60 deaths that are still listed as of unknown nature or of natural causes. These questions underscore the importance of building in more robust, independent checks of prisoner abuse and death.

No Reporting, Underreporting, and Delayed Reporting of Deaths in Custody
Apart from being a regulatory requirement, it is common sense that an investigation into an alleged crime should begin as soon as possible after its discovery. Delay in reporting can reduce the evidentiary value of both physical evidence and witness statements.455 The Army’s own Legal Guide for Commanders explains: “As time passes, witnesses may forget, develop a biased view of the facts, hesitate to give statements, or become difficult to find. The scene of the incident may also change, perhaps due to repairing damaged property or moving evidence.”456 For this reason, Army regulations require commanders to report the deaths of detainees in their custody within 24 hours of the incident.457 The standards governing command behavior in response to a death in custody are particularly stringent. Commanders are required to report criminal incidents458 and cooperate in any ensuing investigation;459 they may release “accurate and timely” information to the public,460 but may not release information “concerning ongoing [criminal] investiga-

A Human Rights First Report

32 — IV. Failures In Investigation

Yet the possibility of accountability in at least 17 cases examined by Human Rights First was compromised from the beginning as a result of delays in reporting a death, failure to report a death at all, and in one case, commanders’ deliberate attempt to conceal the death of a detainee.473 Delays in reporting of incidents of deaths in custody were neither isolated nor limited to a handful of cases. An Army tally of criminal investigations into prisoner abuse as of November 2004 suggests that as many as 17 detainee deaths were not reported through proper channels. (The Army’s tally is heavily redacted, but based on dates of deaths, eight of the Army’s cases overlap with those Human Rights First identified).474 Our examples include: • The death of an unnamed Afghan, killed while being questioned by Army Special Forces in January 2003, was not reported to criminal investigators at all. Instead, the “[b]asic allegation [was] discovered during the conduct of another CID investigation” and an investigation was opened only in September 2004,475 over one and a half years after the death occurred. The death of Hamza Byaty in Iraq on August 7, 2003 was not reported until over two weeks after it occurred.476 Army criminal investigators had difficulty finding witnesses,477 and perhaps as a result of this delay, the autopsy could only find that he had died of an “undetermined atraumatic cause.”478 Army criminal investigators were not informed of Iraqi detainee Mohammed al-Izmerly’s death until 17 days after it occurred on January 31, 2004. By that time, the body had been released to alIzmerly’s family and Army investigators could not conduct an autopsy.479 Four deaths that occurred during riots at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq on November 24, 2003 were not reported to Army criminal investigators until December 2, 2003. As a result, investigators were not able to examine the body of one of the victims, which had already been taken away from the prison.480 Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson al-Zubaidy (Hasson) died in at Camp Bucca in Iraq in the middle of 2003, but Army investigators did not learn of Hasson’s death until a year after it occurred.481 The resulting investigation could not determine a cause of death or any other information about circumstances.

Criminal Investigations
The Army’s CID is the sole agency responsible for investigating felony crimes that involve Army personnel and that carry a maximum punishment of one or more years of confinement.482 CID agents—approximately 2000 soldiers and civilians and 900 special agents483— are deployed worldwide and are concentrated in combat zones. 484 For every investigation, CID agents are required to maintain detailed records of their investigation plans and the outcomes of any investigation.485 The final investigation report includes the findings of the agents,486 pending leads,487 chronological summaries of the investigative proceedings,488 and any other relevant documents (such as medical reports or crime lab results).489 Drafts are reviewed by a Special Agent in Charge490 and, once completed, the official report is forwarded to the local JAG unit for legal review, including whether the facts warrant prosecution and the charges that may be brought.491 After the legal review, the final report is forwarded to CID Headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia,492 where the case is reviewed again to determine if it merits further investigation or if it may be closed.493 Based on the report of the investigating CID agent, the commander of the soldier’s unit will consult with the commander’s assigned JAG officer to decide whether or not to follow the recommendations. The decision to press charges is at the discretion of the unit’s commanders.494

•

•

Overlapping Investigations
The effectiveness of internal investigations was also undermined in a number of instances by careless use of the Army’s multiple-investigative-avenues structure – one in which commanders have the option to request both administrative and criminal investigations that may run on parallel tracks. In some instances, an administrative investigation may be an effective means of conducting an investigation into wrongdoing. Major General Antonio Taguba’s investigation into the detention and internment operations of the 800th Military Police Brigade in the context of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, for example, is a model of an administrative investigation conducted with objectivity and thoroughness.495 But review of the individual deaths that were subjects of both criminal and administrative investigations indicates that the existence of both investigative procedures, each with their own reporting and evidentiary standards, has sometimes functioned to reduce accountability for unlawful acts. 496 In one case, a subsequent criminal investigator simply served to

•

•

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 33

“rubber stamp” a prior administrative investigation.497 In at least one other case, administrative investigators failed to observe the standards of evidence collection required in criminal investigations and, as a result, the possibility of prosecution for what turned out to be a criminal offense was limited.498 The “rubber stamp” problem is in part structural: under a policy memorandum issued on April 3, 2002, Army criminal investigators were authorized to decide that an administrative investigation into allegations of felonies or war crimes committed against detainees was adequate and close the case without independent investigation.499 An example of the problem is the investigation into the death of Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi, the Iraqi actor who was shot and killed in his Baghdad home. The administrative investigation found the shooting to be justified; it concluded that al-Bawi had grabbed at a U.S. soldier’s rifle, switched the safety off, and that the soldier then fired his pistol five times in self-defense.500 Public statements about the killing made by the military were consistent with these findings.501 But subsequent articles in the Washington Post and the Boston Globe detailed the family’s allegations of wrongdoing by U.S. forces.502 These articles were in the criminal investigation file;503 despite this, the criminal investigating agent spent an hour and a half reviewing the administrative investigation, and did not attempt any independent verification before requesting approval from his unit’s Staff Judge Advocate to close the case.504 The criminal investigators concurred in the administrative investigation’s finding that the killing was in self-defense.505 Another example is the criminal investigation report into the shooting death of an Iraqi detainee at Camp Cropper, Akel Abedal Hussein Jabar; the criminal investigation report also references an attached administrative investigation into the detainee’s death.506 Jabar, an Iraqi detainee, was ostensibly killed during a riot. The file contains an “Outstanding Leads Worksheet,” which lists 17 items for follow-up, including such basic investigation tasks as completing the crime scene examination, sending evidence to a lab for forensic evaluation, interviews of soldiers and detainee witnesses to the death, collection of the weapon and shell casings used to shoot Jabar, and conduct of an autopsy.507 None of the leads was followed and the criminal investigating agent, the Special Agent in Charge, and the Staff Judge Advocate concluded the administrative investigation adequately supported a finding of justifiable homicide.508

Administrative Investigations
Administrative investigations, or so-called “Army Regulation 15-6 investigations,” are standard procedures for administrative fact-finding in the Army509 and “may be used as a general guide for investigations”510 into anything from a series of broken air-conditioners, to a missing soldier, to a death in custody.511 At its inception, the appointing commander designates whether the administrative investigation will be formal or informal,512 and assigns an investigating officer who need not be a professional investigator or lawyer.513 Procedural guidelines and documentation standards depend on whether an investigation is formal (more stringent requirements; require proceedings to be documented) or informal (not required to meet specific guidelines; no documentation of proceedings required).514 On completion, the report of an administrative investigation must be submitted to the appointing commander’s JAG officer for legal review,515 then provided to the appointing commander, who determines what action, if any, should be brought.516 In making that determination, the appointing commander is “neither bound nor limited by the findings or recommendations of an investigation.”517 Administrative investigations can only be used to investigate an incident or individual within the appointing commander’s chain of command, in other words, the investigator cannot investigate wrongdoing at the level of, or higher than, the commander who initiated the investigation.518

Inadequate Record Keeping
One of the fundamental tenets of the laws of war is that full and adequate records regarding the capture and treatment of detainees must be kept;519 a host of Department of Defense and Army regulations codify this requirement.520 Yet in more than a dozen cases, these regulations were not followed, and investigations into most of these detainee deaths appear to have been undermined as a result.521 The Army’s medical record-keeping was particularly poor, with detainees’ medical records often left incomplete or entirely missing. Thus, although Army investigations found that fourteen detainees died of natural causes because of pre-existing conditions,522 at least five case files do not include records documenting these conditions.523 In some instances, this appears to have been an administrative oversight by criminal investigators who may not have requested records.524 In others, however, there were simply no medical records to be found. For example, although it was policy at Iraq’s Camp Warhorse that a record of a

A Human Rights First Report

34 — IV. Failures In Investigation

detainee’s intake medical screening be attached to his detainee file, the officer who investigated Hassan Ahmed’s death found that there was “no documentation of a medical screening . . . in his file.”525 This was also certainly the case in the deaths of at least two “ghost” detainees526 killed in American custody – prisoners whose names were unlawfully kept off the prison’s rolls in an effort to keep the International Committee of the Red Cross from knowing about them.527 It was also at times a matter of policy. For example, until mid-August 2004, at Camp Warhorse, no records had been kept of “sick call” treatment given to detainees.528 The administrative officer who investigated the death of an unidentified detainee at that facility recommended that “[a]ll medical information and encounters… [be] documented,” because such record keeping was “standard of care throughout the world.”529 For criminal investigators, the absence of medical records can be pivotal. Inadequate records kept in the cases of Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson al-Zubaidy and Jassim Al-Obodi made determining the cause of death impossible.530 Without basic records, there was no basis in either of these cases to determine or substantiate the cause of death, let alone seek any accountability for it.

Medical Records
The Army Surgeon General’s April 2005 Report on Detainee Medical Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba found “wide variability in medical records generation at level I and II [non-hospital] facilities. In some cases, no records were generated . . . . In others cases, care was documented on Field Medical Cards . . . only.”531 Further, “[m]edical care, including screenings, at or near the time of interrogation, was neither consistently documented nor consistently included in detainee medical records.”532 Notable among omissions from detainees’ records, medical personnel “did not consistently nor uniformly document [actual or suspected detainee] abuse in the medical record,” and the Surgeon General’s investigating team “discovered no DoD, Army, or theater policies requiring that actual or suspected abuse be documented in a detainee’s medical records.”533 Even if those policies existed, they may not have been followed because “less than 3% of medical personnel surveyed from the AC [active component] and 7% from the RC [reserve component] . . . reported receiving training on detainee medical records.”534

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 35

V. Failure of Accountability
Command is a sacred trust. The legal and moral responsibilities of commanders exceed those of any other leader of similar position or authority. . . .Our society and the institution look to commanders to make sure that missions succeed, that people receive the proper training and care, that values survive. On the one hand, the nation grants commanders special authority to be good stewards of its most precious resources: freedom and people. On the other hand, those citizens serving in the Army also trust their commanders to lead them well.
U.S. Department of the Army Field Manual on Leadership 22-100

There are surprisingly few detainee death cases in which anyone has been identified as responsible; there are fewer still in which someone accused of wrongdoing has been punished. Of the 34 homicide cases surveyed in this report,535 investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds,536 and charges were actually brought in less than half.537 In the end, we know of only 12 detainee deaths that have resulted in punishment of any kind for any individual.538 The punishments in eight of the 12 cases appear strikingly lenient.539 Critically, only half of the cases of detainees tortured to death have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone implicated in a torture-related death has been five months in jail.540 While it is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of punishment when the deliberations of juries and commanders remain largely unknown, two things are clear: (1) command has played a key role in undermining chances for full accountability, and (2) investigative and evidentiary failures have limited accountability up and down the chain of command.

The Role of Command
Command failures to provide clear guidance and lawful instruction on interrogation and detention rules appear to have played a role in limiting accountability, especially in cases involving torture. Punishments for torture-related deaths have been much less severe than punishments meted out for homicides involving, for example, a wrongful shooting. In part, evidence of command’s responsibility in the torture cases may have caused military juries or judges to award lenient sentences or accept lesser pleas for lower ranking troops; if troops received guidance that appeared to justify (or turn a blind eye to) harsh or torturous treatment, or if they received no guidance, it could seem unfair to hold them solely or fully accountable for a death. Indeed, inadequate or unlawful guidance has been raised as an issue in at least four detainees’ deaths.541 For example: • In court martial proceedings against Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, for the murder of Iraqi detainee General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, Welshofer claimed that he was “not at all” trained for the interrogation of captured detainees.542 He understood he was authorized to force Mowhoush

A Human Rights First Report

36 — V. Failures of Accountability

into a sleeping bag based in part on a memorandum from General Ricardo Sanchez, the highestranking military official in Iraq at the time.543 In that memorandum, General Sanchez authorized harsh interrogation techniques, including sleep and environmental manipulation, the use of aggressive dogs, and stress positions – even as Sanchez acknowledged that other countries might view these techniques as inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions.544 That memorandum was the only intheater guidance Welshofer testified he received.545 The use of the sleeping bag technique was also authorized by Welshofer’s Company Commander, Major Jessica Voss.546 Welshofer was charged with murder but found guilty of negligent homicide, for which he received a reprimand, a $6,000 fine, and confinement to his home, base, or place of worship for 60 days.547 Voss was not criminally charged. • Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Berg, the Army judge who oversaw a pretrial inquiry in the death of two Afghan detainees Dilawar and Habibullah, noted that the Military Police Company responsible for detainees at the Bagram detention facility had not been adequately trained before deployment for its mission; Berg recommended that charges be dropped against the accused officer, Captain Christopher M. Beiring.548 An administrative investigation into the death of Iraqi Obeed Hethere Radad, shot to death in his detention cell by Army Specialist Juba MartinoPoole, found that Martino-Poole violated the Army’s use of force policy.549 The investigation also found that there were no written standard operating procedures and that there was inadequate clarity on the use of force with regard to detainee operations at the base.550 Martino-Poole was discharged by his commander before a criminal investigation could be completed; the investigation ultimately found probable cause to charge him with murder.551

Of all Deaths, Only 12 Have Resulted in Punishment
Punishment & Defense People charged with any offense related to these deaths
556

Deaths involving torture (four)554 28557

Deaths not involving torture (eight)555 25558

People who received any kind of punishment Highest rank punished for a death Convictions with jail time Defendants asserting at court-martial their lack of training or that actions were authorized as a defense. Highest punishment

20559 Major561 4563 6565

15560 Major562 6564 1566

5 months in prison and a bad-conduct discharge567 Reprimand569

25 years in prison568 Reprimand 570

Lowest punishment

•

Who was charged? Officers charged Officers punished Enlisted personnel charged Enlisted personnel punished Civilian contractors charged Civilian contractors punished

Deaths involving torture 6571 5 573 21575 15577 1579 0 (trial pending)

Deaths not involving torture 9572 6574 16576 9578 0 0

Authorization and training are also at issue in cases implicating the CIA. Recently, the judge in a federal criminal case against CIA contractor David Passaro ruled that Passaro can present evidence that he was following orders in his interrogation of Abdul Wali, an Afghan detainee.552 The government alleges that in the two days before Wali died, Passaro beat Wali with his fists and a flashlight.553 As of February 2006, the case is proceeding toward trial.

In addition to the failure to provide clear guidance, commanders have in some cases exercised their discretion to lessen the punishment subordinates are given following investigations in which troops are found responsible for wrongdoing. • In the case of Mohammed Sayari, an Afghan allegedly shot to death by U.S. Special Forces, criminal investigators found probable cause to recommend charges of conspiracy and murder

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 37

against four members of the Special Forces unit and dereliction of duty charges against three of the four.580 Among these, investigators recommended a captain be charged with murder, conspiracy, dereliction of duty, and obstruction of justice (likely because the captain ordered a subordinate to destroy evidence).581 Criminal investigators also recommended that a fifth, a chief warrant officer, be charged as an accessory after the fact.582 Yet the commander of the 2/3 Special Forces Group, based in Fort Bragg, decided not to pursue any of the recommended charges in a court martial.583 Instead, the captain was given only received a written reprimand for destruction of evidence; charges against other Special Forces soldiers were dropped.584 The reasoning behind the commander’s decisions is unknown. • After their subordinates ordered two Iraqis to jump into the Tigris River, resulting in the death of one, Zaidoun Hassoun, three Army commanders failed to inform criminal investigators of the incident.585 The commanders – Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander, Captain Matthew Cunningham, a company commander, and Major Robert Gwinner, the deputy battalion commander – allegedly ordered subordinates to deny the incident occurred, to resist cooperation with criminal investigators,586 and they “coach[ed]” their soldiers on what to say to investigators.587 The three later obtained grants of immunity from prosecution, and admitted at their subordinates’ trial that their subordinates had forced Hassoun to jump into the Tigris.588 Sassaman, Cunningham and Gwinner received reprimands for obstruction of justice but were not relieved of their command.589 Four of their subordinates were charged in connection with Hassoun’s death, two were acquitted of manslaughter but received punishment for assault,590 and two others received non-judicial punishment, details of which have not been disclosed.591 The highest punishment any of the four junior soldiers received was six months imprisonment, reduction in rank, and a fine of $2,004.592 By the time criminal investigators completed their work and found cause to charge Army Specialist Juba Martino-Poole with murder in the death of Iraqi Obeed Hethere Radad, Martino-Poole’s commander, Major General Raymond T. Odierno, had already given Martino-Poole a discharge.593 Martino-Poole did not, therefore, have to face the possible harsher punishment of a criminal proceeding. The reasons for Major General Odierno’s decision are unknown.

Perhaps most significant, commanders themselves continue to escape accountability almost entirely. Again, this has been particularly striking in torturerelated deaths, where command guidance and policy have been directly implicated; in these cases, enlisted personnel have been punished at a rate three times greater than those in command. Both U.S. and international law provide that commanders are responsible for the acts of their subordinates; this law of command responsibility was discussed in detail by the U.S. Supreme Court since in a landmark case following World War II.594 Commanders are liable for the acts of their subordinates in the chain of command if commanders: (1) exercised effective control over those subordinates; (2) knew or had reason to know of their subordinates’ unlawful conduct; and (3) despite that knowledge, failed to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent their subordinates’ conduct.595 Despite this longstanding rule, no civilian official or officer above the rank of major responsible for interrogation and detention policies or practices has been charged in connection with any death of a detainee in U.S. custody, including the deaths of detainees by torture or abuse. Consider these examples. • Only 28% of the individuals charged in connection with a death in custody and 31% of those who received any kind of punishment are officers; the majority of those charged and punished are noncommissioned personnel. The highest ranking officer to be held responsible for detainee death is a Major: Major Clarke Paulus was convicted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment for ordering a subordinate to drag Iraqi detainee Hatab by the neck, and for allowing Hatab to remain unmonitored for hours in the blazing Iraqi sun; he was discharged but received no prison time.596 Major Jessica Voss received a reprimand for her failure to provide adequate supervision in the death of Iraqi General Mowhoush; she was not charged in the death.597 Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, Captain Matthew Cunningham, and Major Robert Gwinner, the three commanders who attempted to cover up Iraqi detainee Hassoun’s death and who instructed their subordinates not to cooperate with investigators, were not punished in connection with the death. They received only reprimands for obstruction of justice.598

•

•

•

A Human Rights First Report

38 — V. Failures of Accountability

•

Captain Carolyn Wood was the commander in charge of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, members of which were involved in the killing of Afghan detainees Habibullah and Dilawar. Within weeks of those killings, Wood was awarded the first of two Bronze Star medals for “exceptionally meritorious service.”599 She was subsequently assigned to the Army’s Intelligence Center in Fort Huachuca, Arizona.600 Human Rights First sought to verify whether Captain Wood was an instructor for new interrogators but was told by a Fort Huachuca representative that the information could not be disclosed.601 No action has been taken to discipline or otherwise hold accountable Colonel David A. Teeples, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry, on whose watch two senior members of the Iraqi military, General Mowhoush and Lieutenant Colonel Jameel, died of abuse.602 Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, U.S. Army Commander of the Coalition Joint Task Force in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, who authorized the use of sleep and environmental manipulation, aggressive dogs, and stress positions against detainees,603 was promoted to head the Army’s V Corps in Europe.604 Chief Warrant Officer Welshofer pointed to one of Sanchez’s memoranda as a basis for his belief that he could use a sleeping bag technique that lead to the death of Iraqi General Mowhoush.605 General Sanchez recently indicated plans to retire early.606 In 2005, three members of the 82nd Airborne Division came forward to describe abuse of detainees by members of their Division in both Afghanistan and Iraq; they specifically described systematic and recurrent torture and other abuse of Iraqi detainees from September 2003 to April 2004, during their deployment.607 Major General Charles H. Swannack, Commander of the 82nd Airborne, has not been held accountable for the acts of his subordinates. 608

Failures of Investigation and Evidence
As the case stories reviewed in this report make clear, repeated failures to adequately investigate, document, or pursue cases in the face of allegations of wrongdoing or abuse have been central contributing factors in creating the accountability gap. While a few nontorture-related homicides have resulted in stiff sentences, 609 more have led to no punishment at all, or to sentences that seem strikingly lenient compared to the severity of the offense. Examples of cases in which investigative failures or a lack of action have undermined accountability include: • In the death of Hatab, key evidence (the detainee’s body) was destroyed, and partly as a result, charges of negligent homicide against a soldier could not be supported and were reduced to assault and battery.610 In a prosecution against an officer for the deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar, the hearing officer in an article 32 proceeding (analogous to a grand jury proceeding) criticized the prosecution in part for not presenting sufficient evidence to support their charges before recommending that the case be dismissed.611 Mohammad Munim al-Izmerly, a 65-year-old Iraqi chemist who died in January 2004, was found by the Director of Baghdad Hospital’s Department of Forensics, Dr. Faik Amin Baker, to have “died from a massive blow to the head”612 The investigation into al-Izmerly’s death was re-opened after press attention, and, two years since his death, remains pending.613 The Army autopsy of the death of Dilar Dababa, reviewed by Human Rights First, describes a number of injuries in detail, indicating he was the recipient of numerous beatings.614 Dababa’s body was covered with at least 22 bruises,615 and at least 50 abrasions,616 with his head and neck suffering the most significant harm, resulting in hemorrhaging throughout his brain.617 Dababa died in June 2003. Since then, there has been no documentation of the outcome of the investigation into his death or of charges being brought against those responsible.618 Fashad Mohammed died in April 2004.619 According to the Army Medical Examiner’s autopsy report, “he was hooded, sleep deprived, and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood.” 620 The report found multiple abrasions and contusions,621

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 39

and although the cause of death was listed as undetermined, the report explicitly did not rule out asphyxia “from various means” as a possible contributing factor.622 It does not appear that any murder or manslaughter charges were brought as a result of Mohammed’s death. Although three Navy SEALS have been charged with assault and other lesser charges, the status of the charges has not been publicly disclosed.623 In addition to highlighting other systemic defects, investigative and evidentiary lapses themselves raise concerns about command’s failure to police the rules governing how crimes should be investigated and evidence maintained. At all stages in the investigation of deaths or other abuses, from investigation to (if justified) prosecution and punishment, command has significant work to do – work that to date has gone too often undone.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 41

VI. The Path Ahead
I was part of a three-man Army JAG officer team sent by the Judge Advocate General's School in Charlottesville, at the time of the Vietnam War, to lecture on our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The interest shown in Geneva’s requirements by our toughest fighters, and their perceptive questions, was a revelation to me. That is because they wanted to know that they were doing the right thing. I am sure that our fighting men and women still do . . . . If we do not yet understand what has been lost by disregarding these rules, at least it is beginning to permeate the collective understanding that by failing to live up to them we are placing our own people in constant danger of retaliation. At the same time, of course, we are helping a determined enemy to recruit more volunteers against us.
William S. Shepard, U.S. Army Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps (Ret.) Interview with Human Rights First, November 9, 2005

Addressing the accountability gap documented in this report is critical both in the interest of justice and also as a matter of national security for the United States. The fear and suspicion that abusive interrogation and detention practices have engendered among Muslim populations have undermined U.S. efforts to gather intelligence, and to fight virulent insurgencies now underway. The persistent lack of clarity on the rules governing detainee interrogation and detention has exposed front-line soldiers to needless risk, and increased the threat of harm for all U.S. officials overseas. And the secrecy that still permeates the system – including information about investigations, prosecutions, and steps toward accountability – raises the likelihood that torture and abuse will continue. Human Rights First urges the United States to develop and implement a zero-tolerance policy for commanders who fail to provide clear guidance to their subordinates, and who allow unlawful conduct to persist on their watch. The key elements of such a policy include the following. • The President should move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment passed overwhelmingly by the U.S.

Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005. Full implementation requires first and foremost that the President clarify his commitment to abide by the ban. • The President should instruct all relevant military and intelligence agencies involved in detention and interrogation operations to review and revise internal rules and legal guidance to make sure they are in line with the McCain statutory mandate and existing constitutional and treaty obligations. The President should issue regular reminders to command that abuse will not be tolerated, and commanders should regularly give troops the same, serious message. The Defense Department, CIA and other relevant agencies should evaluate and update training for all U.S. officials engaged in human intelligence and detention operations to ensure they have a full practical understanding of the implications of the bans on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – and the consequences of violating it. Personnel in each of the military and intelligence agencies charged with investigating crimes by U.S. soldiers and agents must also receive regular, high

•

A Human Rights First Report

VI. The Path Ahead – 42

quality training, so that when commanders do order investigations those processes are thorough and complete. • The Defense Department, CIA and other relevant agencies should take steps to welcome independent oversight – by Congress and civil society – by immediately disclosing with specificity the status of all investigations into, and prosecution of cases concerning, detainee deaths, torture and abuse. Going forward, these agencies should establish a centralized, up-to-date, and publicly available collection of information about the status of investigations and prosecutions (including trial transcripts, documents, and evidence presented), and all incidents of abuse. The Departments of Defense and Justice should move forward promptly with long-pending actions against those involved in cases of wrongful detainee death or abuse, and state the basis of decisions not to prosecute. The U.S. military should make good on the obligation of command responsibility by developing, in consultation with congressional, military justice, human rights, and other advisors, a public plan for holding all those who engage in wrongdoing accountable. Such a plan could include the implementation of a single, high-level convening authority across the branches of the military for allegations of detainee torture and abuse. The convening authority would: review and make decisions about whom to hold responsible; take critical decisions about whether and when to charge troops with crimes out of the hands of individual commanders in the field; bring uniformity, certainty, and more independent oversight to the process of discipline and punishment; and make the punishment of commanders themselves more likely. An accountability plan might also include, for example, an increase in the maximum allowable punishments for maltreatment, dereliction of duty, and other offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that are applicable in cases of abuse.

•

Congress should implement a check on officer promotions – such as those put in place for the Navy following the Tailhook scandal – by requiring that each branch of the military certify, for any officer whose promotion requires Senate confirmation, that the officer was not involved in any case of detainee death, torture or abuse. Congress should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the “war on terror.” Such a commission could investigate and identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and specific path of recommendations going forward to make sure those mistakes never happen again.

•

•

•

The “accountability gap” documented in this report is about more than just a failure to correct past mistakes. It is about how the United States is conducting detention and interrogation operations today, and whether officials up and down the chain of command – and in every U.S. agency – recognize and answer for the consequences that come with breaking the law. The United States will not be successful at ending torture and abuse until it has an established system designed to prevent abuse before it happens, punish it when it does, and deter any who might think it is possible to get away with abuse.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 43

VII. Appendices
Appendix A
The Numbers
Visual breakdown of Human Rights First’s findings. http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06217-etn-app-ahrf-dic.pdf

Appendix C
General Sanchez authorizes harsh interrogation techniques, including stress positions
On September 10, 2003, a memo from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then U.S. Army Commander of the Coalition Joint Task Force in Iraq, authorized such harsh interrogation techniques as sleep and environmental manipulation, the use of aggressive dogs, and the use of stress positions. The memo, discussed for the first time as evidence in the January 2006 trial of a Chief Warrant Officer accused of involvement in a detainee’s murder, is at Appendix C. It underscores both the confusion in the military over the applicability of Geneva Convention protections in Iraq and commanders’ recognition that techniques could violate law: General Sanchez authorized harsh techniques even as he recognized that other countries might view them as inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06124-etn-sep-10sanchez-memo.pdf

Appendix B
Secretary Rumsfeld authorizes coercive interrogation techniques
On December 2, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally approved a list of interrogation techniques for use on detainees at Guantanamo. Many of these techniques were not consistent with international and U.S. law and contrary to the established rules and military standards governing detention and interrogation as set forth in Army Field Manual 34-52. They included the use of “stress positions,” 20-hour interrogations, the removal of clothing, the use of dogs, isolation, and sensory deprivation. Although approved for Guantanamo, the techniques were later used by subordinates in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of the techniques were later rescinded, and Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved a new list in April 2003, which still included dietary manipulation, sensory deprivation and “false flag” (leading detainees to believe that they have been transferred to a country that permits torture). He also made clear that harsher techniques could be used with his personal authorization. Appendix B contains the December 2, 2002 authorization and list of techniques. The handwritten notation by Secretary Rumsfeld, on the first page, reads: “However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/dodmemos-120202.pdf

A Human Rights First Report

44 — VII. Appendices: Summary

Appendix D
Junior officer claims use of “sleeping bag technique” that caused detainee death was authorized stress position
Human Rights First’s analysis of deaths in U.S. custody includes the case of Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who suffocated to death after two soldiers forced him inside a sleeping bag, wrapped him in an electric cord, sat on him, and blocked his airways. Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer faced a murder charge at court martial. At an initial stage in the investigation, Chief Welshofer was given a letter of reprimand by his commanding officer, General Charles H. Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division. Both in a written rebuttal to Swannack’s reprimand and as part of his defense at court martial, Chief Welshofer argued that he understood “the sleeping bag technique” was authorized by General Sanchez’s September 10, 2003 memo, which specifically authorized the use of stress positions. Chief Welshofer was found guilty of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty, and received punishment of a reprimand, a $6,000 fine, and movement restricted to his home, base, and place of worship. Appendix D contains Chief Welshofer’s rebuttal to his reprimand. The handwritten notation at the top, from his superior officer, General Swannack, reads: “Death was from asphyxiation! I expect better adherence to standards in the future!” http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/memdic021104.pdf

Appendix E
Record keeping failure means cause of death may never be known
Among the investigation flaws identified in Human Rights First’s review of deaths in U.S. custody are military investigators’ belated efforts to find out what happened to some detainees whose deaths were never reported and whose cases simply slipped through the cracks. Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson al-Zubaidy (Hasson) is one of those cases. Appendix E is an extract from the Army’s October 2004 investigation report into Mr. Hasson’s death. As it describes, the Army’s eventual efforts to find out what happened to Mr. Hasson went nowhere because U.S. record-keeping about detainees was so poor. According to a U.S. Mortuary Affairs officer: “the documentation on deceased Detainees was very limited . . . the majority of the time prior to earlier this year [2004], when the Mortuary received the remains of a deceased Detainee they would only know that the deceased was a detainee, and would not have any other info on the remains, so they would have a list of the remains as unknown John Doe.” http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06216-etn-dic-appe.pdf

Appendix F
Army recommendation to lessen perception of cover up
Abu Malik Kenami died after he was subjected to extreme exercise – made to stand up, then sit down, over and over again – then cuffed, hooded and returned to a crowded cell. The investigation into his death is an example of other flaws Human Rights First identified: investigators failed to conduct interviews of critical witnesses and did not gather and maintain physical evidence. The Army’s own subsequent review of the investigation into Mr. Kenami’s death found “it was weak in Thoroughness and Timeliness.” Appendix F contains two excerpts from the Kenami investigation records. The first is the Army’s review of the initial criminal investigation, and lists that investigation’s inadequacies. The second is an excerpt from the Army’s administrative investigation, which recommends that an Iraqi physician be brought in to treat detainees because, among other benefits, “[i]t would [also] decrease the perception of our involvement or cover-up in events like these.” http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06216-etn-dic-appf.pdf

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 45

Appendix G
No criminal investigation: shooting death of allegedly elderly and disabled man
Among the deaths for which the official cause is unknown but which Human Rights First identifies as a possible homicide is an unnamed man, killed in Balad, Iraq, on January 3, 2004. The only publiclyavailable record of his death is in Appendix F, in which his family’s claim for compensation is considered by U.S. forces – and denied. Human Rights First found no indication that the man’s death was criminally investigated and has requested that information from the Department of Defense. According to Appendix G, U.S. forces allege that the man, whom they describe as a suspected insurgent, reached for a pistol while detained during a raid on his home. On the second page of Appendix G is what the Army document describes as a “verbatim transcription” of the man’s family’s claims. The family asserted that their father was shot without cause and attach medical records to support their assertion that the father “was [a] physically disabled retired old man, walking only through the aid of crutches due [to] peripheral neuropathy and muscular atrophy caused by long standing disease of Diabetes Mellitus and hypertension . . .” http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06216-etn-dic-appg.pdf

Appendix H
List of Human Rights First Freedom of Information Act Requests
Lists the Freedom of Information Act requests Human Rights First has filed in connection with deaths in U.S. custody.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility

Appendix A – G (pages 47 – 98) are available online and in the printed version.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 99

Appendix H
Human Rights First’s Freedom of Information Act Requests Relating to Deaths in Custody
1. June 11, 2004, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records and reports of criminal investigations by the Army Criminal Investigation Command of possible misconduct against detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2002. June 11, 2004, Request to the Central Intelligence Agency for all records concerning investigations by the Office of the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency of deaths of three detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 – Manadel al-Jamadi, Abid Hamid Mowhoush, and Abdul Wali. June 18, 2004, Request to the Department of Justice for all records concerning the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation of alleged homicide of a detainee in Iraq or Afghanistan by a contractor employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. July 20, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation into the death of Sher Mohammed Khan. July 21, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0011-04-CID46979630 (drowning death of Zaidoun Hassoun). July 21, 2005, Request to NCIS Headquarters for all documents related to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation into the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab. July 21, 2005, Request to the 5th Special Forces Group for all documents related to the Commander’s Inquiry conducted, pursuant to AR 15-6, into the death of Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi on May 17th, 2004, in Baghdad, Iraq. 8. July 21, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Medical Command for all medical records pertaining to the care of Sher Mohammed Khan, including his autopsy. July 21, 2005, Request to the 4th Infantry Division for all records relating to the Commander’s Inquiry conducted pursuant to AR 15-6 to investigate the shooting death of Obeed Hethere Radad.

2.

9.

3.

10. July 22, 2005, Request to NCIS Headquarters for all documents relating to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation into the deaths of Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil. 11. July 22, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation into the death of Lt. Col. Abdul Jameel. 12. July 22, 2005, Request to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all commander’s inquiries commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Marine Regiment regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 13. July 22, 2005, Request to Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all commander’s inquiries investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Marine Regiment regarding incidents

4.

5.

6.

7.

A Human Rights First Report

100 — VII. Appendix H

occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 14. July 22, 2005, Request to the 301st Military Police for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 301st Military Police regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 15. July 22, 2005, Request to the 5th Special Forces Group for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within 5th Special Forces Group regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 16. July 22, 2005, Request to the 4th Infantry Division for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 1/8th Infantry Battalion of the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 17. July 22, 2005, Request to the 4th Infantry Division for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 4th Forward Support Battalion of the 4th Infantry Division regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 18. July 22, 2005, Request to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all commander’s inquiries commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 2nd Regiment Combat Team of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 19. July 22, 2005, Request to the XVIII Airborne Corps for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 7th Special Forces Group regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 20. July 22, 2005, Request to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regula-

tion 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 21. July 22, 2005, Request to the 1st Cavalry Division for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 1st Battalion of the 41st Infantry Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 22. July 22, 2005, Request to the XVIII Airborne Corps for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 23. July 22, 2005, Request to the 20th Special Forces Group for investigation reports and supporting or otherwise related materials for all Army Regulation 15-6 investigations commenced on or after January 1, 2002 within the 20th Special Forces Group regarding incidents occurring outside the territorial United States and involving bodily injury or death. 24. July 25, 2005, Request to NCIS Headquarters for all records relating to a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation into the death of Manadel al-Jamadi. 25. July 25, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation into the death of Manadel al-Jamadi. 26. July 26, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0174-04-CID259, an investigation into a death which occurred at an unknown location, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan, on September 13th, 2003. 27. July 27, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0233-04-CID789, an investigation into the possible death of a detainee at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, in June of 2004, as the result of a blood transfusion of the wrong type.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 101

28. July 28, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0537-04-CID034, an investigation into a death which occurred at an unknown location, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan, on December 1st, 2003. 29. August 1, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation into the killing of Naser Ismail. 30. August 2, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation into the killing of Jamal Naseer. 31. August 3, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0239-04-CID259, an investigation into a death which occurred at Camp Bucca, Iraq, on an unknown date.

32. August 5, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0326-04-CID056, an investigation into a death which occurred at an unknown location, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan, on an unknown date. 33. August 8, 2005, Request to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center [CID] for all records relating to an Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigation with sequence number 0035-03-CID25961144, an investigation into the death of an Iraqi Army Private. 34. August 10, 2005, Request to the Department of Defense for all records relating to the detention, treatment, and transfer of Hadi Abdul Hussain Hasson al-Zubaidy, an Iraqi citizen, treated aboard the USNS Comfort in 2003.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 103

VIII. Endnotes
1

Human Rights First Telephone Interview with Hossam Mowhoush, son of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush (Sept. 22, 2005) (transcription on file with Human Rights First).

The total number of deaths in custody analyzed by Human Rights First is 98. See research compilation on file with Human Rights First, based on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, press reports, and Human Rights First interviews (“DIC Table”). Unless otherwise specified, supporting citations in footnotes to a detainee’s last name refer to the entries concerning that detainee’s death in the DIC Table, which is available upon request from Human Rights First. The DIC Table is organized chronologically by date of death. In a number of instances, the name of a detainee is not known, although the date and location of death is; such detainees have been sequentially numbered (Unknown 1, Unknown 2, etc.), based on date of death and are referred to in this Report by the sequential number. This Report focuses on deaths that implicate interrogation or detention policy or practice and Human Rights First includes in its count of 98 deaths any death caused by one or more members of the U.S. Armed Forces or other official U.S. governmental agency while the person was under U.S. control, including a death at a detainee’s home, a death during an alleged escape attempt, and death at the point of capture but after a person’s surrender. The 98 deaths also include ten deaths about which only minimal information, such as name or a date of death is publicly available, and for which there is no publicly available information on cause or circumstances of death. For the purposes of this Report, Human Rights First has not included in its analysis deaths in situations where U.S. custody is open to question (including deaths allegedly caused at check-point stops where circumstances of the stop or surrender are unclear), or deaths allegedly caused at a later point in time by injuries sustained during combat (including alleged “mercy” killings). The total number of deaths Human Rights First counts is 141; this number includes 38 detainees who died when their detention facilities were struck by mortar attacks, and five deaths of detainees killed in U.S. custody by other detainees. While these latter 43 deaths are of concern – and appear to be in part a reflection of poor operational decisions, noted by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, to house detainees in areas of active danger – they were not a function of interrogation or detention policy or practice. See FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEP. PANEL TO REVIEW DOD DETENTION OPERATIONS, Aug. 2004, at 63, 77. We use the same definition of “homicide” as the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division: “Death resulting from the intentional (explicit or implied) or grossly reckless behavior of another person or persons.” As the Army itself points out, this definition is different from murder, which, like manslaughter, is a legal term that requires a judge or jury to find that the intent behind the death had a degree of maliciousness. Dep’t of the Army, Criminal Investigation Division, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.cid.army.mil/faqs.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (citing to Title 18, U.S. Code definition of “Murder” as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”). See DIC Table: There are 20 homicides in which investigators found unjustified homicide or in which there were prosecutions for a death and 14 that investigators found justifiable. The 20 unjustified homicides are: Sayari (criminal investigators found probable cause for conspiracy to murder); Dilawar and Habibullah (probable cause for crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators); Unknown 2 (murder charge); Hatab (charges initially brought included voluntary manslaughter; commanders later dropped the charge), Wali (federal criminal assault charges in connection with death); Radad (criminal investigators found probable cause for murder); F. Mohammed (prosecutors brought charges including assault with intent to cause death); al-Jamadi (pathologist ruled case a homicide; court martial for assault and battery); Mowhoush (court martial brought on murder charge); Hassoun (two soldiers charged with manslaughter, one other charged with involuntary manslaughter); Ismail (soldier charged with murder, but acquitted); Jameel (criminal investigators recommended charges including negligent homicide); Kadir (manslaughter conviction); Kareem and Hanjil (criminal investigators recommended, and commanders considered but ultimately dropped, murder charges); Unknowns 18 and 19 (two soldiers court-martialed for murders, received 25 and 5 years in jail, respectively); T. Ahmed (soldier guilty of murder); Unknown 22 (soldier charged with murder). The 14 deaths found by the military to be justified homicides are: al-Haddii; Jabar; A. Hassan; Unknown 7; Sayar; Salman; Shalaan; Thawin; Amir; Farhan; K. Mahmood; al-Bawi; Ghafar and Habib.
4 3

2

See 18 U.S.C. §2340 (1998) (“‘torture’ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control”). See DIC Table: The detainees tortured to death are: Habibullah; Dilawar; Naseer; Abdul Wali; Unknown 1 (detainee killed at the “Salt Pit” facility in Afghanistan); al-Jamadi; Mowhoush; and, Jameel. In addition, the publicly-available evidence and circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dababa, F. Mohammed, Hatab and al-Izmerly raise concerns that they may also have been subjected to torture.

A Human Rights First Report

104 — VIII. Endnotes

5

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Initial/Final SSI – 0037-04-CID201-54050 (Nov. 16, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/042105/9290_9388.pdf, at 68-69 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Throughout this Report, page number citations for PDF files of records released by the military and other government agencies refer to the physical number of pages in the files and may not correspond to agency-assigned page number stamps. Human Rights First Telephone Interview with Mohammed Mowhoush, son of Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush (Nov. 9, 2005) (transcription on file with Human Rights First).
7 8 6

Josh White, Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs, WASH. POST, Aug. 3, 2005, at A1 [hereinafter White, Brutal Improvisation].

Monte Morin and Alissa Rubin, Abuse Suspected in Iraqi General’s Death, L.A. TIMES, May 23, 2004, at A9; GlobalSecurity.org, Iraq Facilities, FOB Tiger, Al Qaim, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-qaim.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
9

GlobalSecurity.org, Iraq Facilities, FOB Tiger, Al Qaim, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-qaim.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

10

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Four, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Eric Schmitt, Army Interrogator Is Convicted of Negligent Homicide in 2003 Death of Iraqi General, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2006, at A16. Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
12 13 14 11

Id. Id.; Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2.

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). While the Administration had issued guidance stating that the Geneva Conventions would apply in Iraq (Department of Defense News Release, Briefing on Geneva Convention, EPW’s and War Crimes, (Apr. 7, 2003), available at, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t04072003_t407genv.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006)), this guidance conflicted with other public statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions.” Dep’t of Defense News Briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers (Jan. 11, 2002), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t01112002_t0111sd.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2005); See also Human Rights First, ENDING SECRET DETENTIONS, (June 2004) at 11–12, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/EndingSecretDetentions_web.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2005) (describing changes in designations for detainees in Iraq). It also conflicted with how detainees were classified and held throughout Iraq in practice. Dep’t of the Army, The Inspector General, DETAINEE OPERATIONS INSPECTION (July 21, 2004) at 76, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/abuse/mikolashekdetaineereport.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).; MAJ. GEN. GEORGE R. FAY, AR 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AT ABU GHRAIB, Aug. 2004, at 11-12, available at http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar156/AR15-6.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter FAY REPORT]. (“In addition to EPWs [enemy prisoners of war] and compliant, nonhostile CIs [civilian internees], units in OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] and OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] were confronted with capturing … other classifications of detainees, such as non-state combatants and non-compliant CIs,”); see also, Douglas Jehl & Neil Lewis, U.S. Said to Hold More Foreigners in Iraq Fighting, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2006, at A1. Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
17 16 15

Michael Howard, Ex-Iraqi general dies in US custody, THE GUARDIAN, Nov. 28, 2003, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1094984,00.html (accessed Feb. 7, 2006). Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, art. 4 (“[p]risoners of war are persons who fall into enemy hands and belong to one of the following categories: “(1) Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) They are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates (b) They have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) They carry arms openly; and (d) They conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war”); see also, Memorandum from Colin Powell for the President on the Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the Conflict in Afghanistan (Jan. 26, 2002), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020126_Powell_WH%20.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
19 18

Memorandum from General Ricardo Sanchez to Combined Joint Task Force Seven and the Commander, 205 Intelligence Brigade (Sept. 10, 2003), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06124-etn-sep-10-sanchez-memo.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Id.

th

20 21

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
22 23 24

Id. White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7.

Human Rights First Telephone Interview with Hossam Mowhoush, son of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush (Oct. 10, 2005) (transcription on file with Human Rights First). Id.

25 26

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 105

27

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Four, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
28 29 30

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7. White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7.

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7; Arthur Kane, Guardsman: CIA Beat Iraqis with Hammer Handles, DENVER POST, July 27, 2005, at A9; Arthur Kane, Iraqi General Beaten Two Days Before Death, DENVER POST, Apr. 5, 2005, at A1; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). The three soldiers were Sergeant Gerold Pratt (see Matthew D. LaPlante, Utah G.I. Exposed Abuses at Prison, SALT LAKE TRIB., July 31, 2005, at A1; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.asp (accessed Jan. 31, 2006)), Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams (see Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A02; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.asp (accessed Jan. 31, 2006)), and Specialist Jerry Loper (see Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Four, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006)).
33 32

31

Arthur Kane, Guardsman: CIA Beat Iraqis with Hammer Handles, DENVER POST, July 27, 2005, at A9; Arthur Kane, Iraqi General Beaten Two Days Before Death, DENVER POST, Apr. 5, 2005, at A1.

34

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Two, Jan. 18, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011806.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
35

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Four, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
36

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Autopsy Examination Report, Autopsy No. ME03-571 (Dec. 18, 2003) [Autopsy, Mowhoush], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 93-100 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Autopsy, Mowhoush]; Arthur Kane, Iraqi General Beaten 2 Days Before Death, DENVER POST, Apr. 5, 2005, at A1.

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
38 39

37

M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, Doing Unto Others as They Did Unto Us, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 14, 2005, at A21.

Jane Mayer, The Experiment: The military trains people to withstand interrogation. Are those methods being misused at Guantanamo?, THE NEW YORKER, July 11, 2005, available at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050711fa_fact4 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, Doing Unto Others as They Did Unto Us, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 14, 2005, at A21.

See, e.g., Jane Mayer, The Experiment: The military trains people to withstand interrogation. Are those methods being misused at Guantanamo?, THE NEW YORKER, July 11, 2005, available at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050711fa_fact4 (accessed nd Feb. 7, 2006); see also Memorandum for Commander 82 ABN DIV, re: CW3 Welshofer, Lewis E. Rebuttal to General Letter of Reprimand (Feb. 11, 2004), at 2, available at http://www.lchr.org/pdf/mem-dic021104.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); see also Memorandum, Dep’t of Defense, JTF GTMO “SERE” Interrogation SOP DTD (Dec. 10, 2002), available at http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD045202.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
41

40

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Id.

42 43

Id.; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.as (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
44

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Id.

45 46

Human Rights First Telephone Interview with Mohammed Mowhoush, son of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush (Nov. 9 and Nov. 14, 2005) (transcription on file with Human Rights First). Id.

47 48

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006, (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofernd 012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Memorandum for Commander 82 ABN DIV, re: CW3 Welshofer, Lewis E. Rebuttal to General Letter of Reprimand (Feb. 11, 2004), available at http://www.lchr.org/pdf/mem-dic021104.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.as (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
50 49

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

A Human Rights First Report

106 — VIII. Endnotes

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7; Arthur Kane, Iraqi General Beaten Two Days Before Death, DENVER POST, Apr. 5, 2005, at A1; Matthew D. LaPlante, Utah G.I. Exposed Abuses at Prison, SALT LAKE TRIB., July 31, 2005, at A1; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). .
52

51

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Four, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
53 54

Autopsy, Mowhoush, supra note 36, at 93–100.

Press Release, Multi-National Force, Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force 7, Iraqi General Dies of Natural Causes, No. 31127a (Nov. 27, 2003). The release has since been removed from military websites, but an archived copy is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20041128154754/http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/media-information/november2003/031127a.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Erin Emery, Carson Soldier Takes the Stand, DENVER POST, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3419775.
56 55

See Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Nicholas Riccardi, Interrogator Convicted in Iraqi’s Death, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 22, 2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-interrogate22jan22,1,81943.story (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2.
57

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Day Three, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906m.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2.
58 59

White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7 (quoting Army memo dated May 10, 2004).

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

Nicholas Riccardi, Interrogator Convicted in Iraqi’s Death, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 22, 2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-interrogate22jan22,1,81943.story (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Erin Emery, Carson GI Convicted in Death of Detainee, DENVER POST, Jan. 21, 2006, available at http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3426219 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Jon Sarche, Jury Orders Reprimand, No Jail for Soldier, ASSOC, PRESS, Jan. 24, 2006, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012400177.html (accessed Jan. 27, 2006); Josh White, Army Interrogator Reprimanded in Iraqi’s Death, WASH. POST, Jan. 24, 2006, at A2.
62 63 61

60

Dick Foster, Army Drops Murder Charges, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Jan. 13, 2006, at 17A.

Arthur Kane, Lesser Charges Urged in Death of Iraqi, DENVER POST, May 11, 2005, at B3; Dick Foster, Army Drops Murder Charges, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Jan. 13, 2006, at 17A.

Douglas Jehl and Tim Golden, C.I.A. Is Likely to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2005, at A6; Press Release, Army Criminal Investigation Command, Army Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Confirmed or Suspected Detainee Homicides for Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, (Mar. 25, 2005), available at http://www.cid.army.mil/Documents/OIFOEF%20Homicides.pdf, at 2 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides]. Lawyers: Army Backed Interrogation Methods, ASSOC. PRESS, Apr. 1, 2005, available at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/31/205753.shtml (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Arthur Kane and Miles Moffeit, U.S. General Backed Lightest Penalty in Interrogation Death, DENVER POST, May 10, 2005, at A6.
66 65

64

Dep’t of the Army, Blood and Steel: The History, Customs, and Traditions of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (2002), at. 35, 73, available at http://www.carson.army.mil/UNITS/3RD%20ACR/main%20pages/3d%20ACR%20History.pdf (accessed Feb. 12, 2006). Josh White, Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs, WASH. POST, Aug. 3, 2005, at A1. Miles Moffeit and Arthur Kane, Army charges 4 in death, DENVER POST, Oct. 5, 2004, at A1.

67 68 69

Dep’t of the Army, Criminal Investigative Division, CID’s Mission – In Depth, http://www.cid.army.mil/mission2.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64 at 7.

70 71

See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Corrected/Initial/Final/SSI-0171-04-CID259-80223-/5H6 (Aug. 7, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/4894_4927.pdf, at 2, 5, 16 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi].
72

Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 2, 8. “(S)” next to the listing of the administrative investigation denotes it as “secret.” See Defense Security Service Internet Web Site, Security Related Acronyms, Abbreviations, And Basic Security Forms, (Mar. 2001), at 9, http://www.dss.mil/training/acro.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). U.S. Dep’t of State, Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture, Annex I, Part Two, III(B)(2) (May 6, 2005), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
74 73

See DIC Table: The eight cases of deaths in which the involvement of the CIA, Special Forces and/or Navy SEALS is alleged are: Unknown 1 (detainee killed at “Salt Pit” facility in Afghanistan in Nov. 2002) (CIA), Unknown 2 (detainee killed in Wazi village, Afghanistan between Jan. 1 and Jan. 13, 2003) (Special Forces), Abdul Wali (CIA), al-Jamadi (CIA and Navy SEALS), Mowhoush (CIA and Special Forces), Jameel (Special Forces/CIA), Fashad Mohamed (Navy SEALS), Jameel Naseer (Special Forces). Exec. Order No. 12333 §1.7, U.S. Intelligence Activities, 46 Fed. Reg. 59941, 59945 (Dec. 4, 1981).

75

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 107

76 77 78 79

See DIC Table: These are the deaths of Unknown 1, Wali, al-Jamadi, Mowhoush, and Jameel. White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7. White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7.

Transcript from United States v. CW2 Williams, Sgt. 1st Class Sommer and Spc. Loper, Article 32 investigation, at 14-16 (in the prosecution arising from the death of Mowhoush, ability to produce a verbatim transcript of trial proceedings complicated by requirement for keeping certain information secret) (Dec. 2, 2004); White, Brutal Improvisation, supra note 7 (“Determining the details of [Mowhoush’s] demise has been difficult because the circumstances are listed as ‘classified’ on his official autopsy, court records have been censored to hide the CIA’s involvement in his questioning, and reporters have been removed from a Fort Carson courtroom when testimony relating to the CIA has surfaced.”); Jane Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, THE NEW YORKER, Nov. 14, 2005, at 44 [hereinafter Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation] (regarding death of al-Jamadi, CIA officials protested questions asked by lawyers in court-martial; individual CIA personnel might have destroyed evidence; an apparent refusal to inform pathologists as to circumstances of a detainee’s death might have led to an incorrect finding); Andrea Weigl, Passaro Says Assault Charges Political, NEWS & OBSERVER, Oct. 20, 2005, at B1 (in prosecution of CIA contractor in connection with the Wali death, evidence provided to defendant was severely censored, reducing his ability to mount “an adequate defense”). Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79. Douglas Jehl and Tim Golden, CIA Is Likely to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2005, at A6. Dana Priest, CIA Avoids Scrutiny of Detainee Treatment, WASH. POST, Mar. 3, 2005, at A1. Douglas Jehl, Report Warned CIA about Interrogations, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 9, 2005, at A1. Dana Priest, Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor, WASH. POST, Dec. 30, 2005, at A1.

80 81 82 83 84 85

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 7; Douglas Jehl, Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GIs Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 26, 2005, at A1; Intel GIs to be Charged in Death, ASSOC. PRESS, June 24, 2004, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/iraq/main626121.shtml (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Jameel’s last name is sometimes given as “Jaleel.”
86

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Final Autopsy Report, Autopsy No. ME04-14 (Apr. 30, 2004) [Autopsy, Jameel], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 108 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Autopsy, Jameel].
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Miles Moffeit, Brutal Interrogation in Iraq, DENVER POST, May 19, 2004, at A1. Id. Id. Id. Id. Douglas Jehl, Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GIs Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 26, 2005, at A1. Autopsy, Jameel, supra note 86, at 108. MedLine Plus: Medical Dictionary, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Autopsy, Jameel, supra note 86, at 114. Autopsy, Jameel, supra note 86, at 108-114. Autopsy, Jameel, supra note 86, at 114. Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 7.

Arthur Kane and Miles Moffeit, Memos: Abuse rife in Iraq Interrogation techniques banned at Guantanamo, DENVER POST, June 27, 2004, at A25.

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 7; Douglas Jehl, Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GIs Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 26, 2005, at A1. Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 7; Douglas Jehl, Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GIs Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 26, 2005, at A1.
102 103 101

100

See Mowhoush case profile, supra text accompanying note 66.

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 7; Douglas Jehl, Pentagon Will Not Try 17 GIs Implicated in Prisoners’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 26, 2005, at A1. Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Final Autopsy Report, Autopsy No.: ME 04-309 (Nov. 22, 2004) [Autopsy, F. Mohammed], available at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/army_previous_releases/eighth_release/, at 96 [hereinafter Autopsy, F. Mohammed].
105 106 107 104

Autopsy, F. Mohammed, supra note 104, at 96; Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 3-4. Autopsy, F. Mohammed, supra note 104, at 96.

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Preliminary Autopsy Report ME 04-309 (June 23, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 133 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006) [Preliminary Autopsy, F. Mohammed].
108 109 110

Josh White, 3 More Navy SEALs Face Abuse Charges, WASH. POST, Sept. 25, 2004, at A16. Eric Schmitt, Navy Charges 3 Commandos With Beating of Prisoners, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 24, 2004, at A7.

See App. A, Memorandum from William J. Haynes, II, Action Memo: Counter-Resistance Techniques (Nov. 27, 2002) (approved by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002, with hand-written notation: “However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing

A Human Rights First Report

108 — VIII. Endnotes

limited to 4 hours?”). Haynes’ memo attaches a memo from General James Hill (Oct. 25, 2002); a memo from Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey (Oct. 11, 2002), a memo (legal review) by Lt. Col. Diane Beaver (Oct. 11, 2002) and a Request for Approval for Counter-Resistance Strategies from Lt. Col. Jerald Phifer (Oct. 11, 2002); see also Memorandum from Donald Rumsfeld to Commander, US Southern Command, Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism (Apr. 16, 2003), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/mem_20030416_Rum_IntTec.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2006). Memorandum from Ricardo S. Sanchez to Commander, U.S. Central Command (Sept. 14, 2003) (attaching Combined Joint Task Force-7 interrogation policy), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/sanc-%20memo-091403.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
112 113 114 115 111

Josh White, 3 More Navy SEALS Face Abuse Charges, WASH. POST, Sept. 25, 2004, at A16. Eric Schmitt, Navy Charges 3 Commandos With Beating of Prisoners, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 24, 2004, at A7. Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79.

Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; David S. Cloud, Navy Officer Found Not Guilty in Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 2005 at A6; Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Final Autopsy Report, Autopsy No. ME03-504 (Jan. 9, 2004) [Autopsy, alJamadi], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 85 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Autopsy, al-Jamadi]. Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; Seth Hettena, Navy SEAL: CIA Roughed Up Iraqi Prisoner, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 1, 2004, available at http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-11012004-393371.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). John McChesney, All Things Considered: The Death of an Iraqi Prisoner (National Public Radio broadcast, Oct. 27, 2005) [hereinafter McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner].
118 119 120 117 116

McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117. McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117.

Sworn Statement of Col. Thomas Pappas, May 14, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/030905/DOD616_653.pdf, at 15 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); FAY REPORT, supra note 15, at 53 – 55, 75 – 76; see also Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79. Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; Seth Hettena, Iraqi Died While Hung From Wrists, ASSOC. PRESS, Feb. 17, 2005, available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-09.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Hettena, Hung From Wrists] . But see McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117 (reporting that one of the MP guards maintains that there was enough slack to allow al-Jamadi to kneel).
122 123 121

Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121.

Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117; Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121. Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117; Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121.
125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 124

FAY REPORT, FAY REPORT,

supra note 15, at 76. supra note 15, at 53.

Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79; Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121. Luke Harding, How Abu Ghraib Torture Victim Faces Final Indignity: An Unmarked Grave, THE GUARDIAN, June 1, 2004, at 4. Id. Autopsy, al-Jamadi, supra note 115, at 85. Autopsy, al-Jamadi, supra note 115, at 86 Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79 Id. McChesney, Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, supra note 117.

T.R. Reid, Trial Starts in Abu Ghraib Death; Navy SEAL Faces Charges; CIA Agents Not Named in Case, WASH. POST, May 25, 2005, at A2.
136 137

Tony Perry, SEALs Instructed to Treat Prisoners Well, L.A. TIMES, May 26, 2005, at A29.

Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121; David S. Cloud, SEAL Officer Hears Charges in Court Martial in Iraqi’s Death, N.Y. TIMES, May 25, 2005, at A8.

Douglas Jehl and Tim Golden, CIA is Likely to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2005, at A6; Hettena, Hung From Wrists, supra note 121; David S. Cloud, SEAL Officer Hears Charges in Court Martial in Iraqi’s Death, N.Y. TIMES, May 25, 2005, at A8. See Dep’t of Defense, Victim and Witness Assistance, Military Justice Overview, http://www.defenselink.mil/vwac/military.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, NonJudicial Punishment, http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/NLSOGlakesNonjudicial_punishment.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Military.com, Benefits and Resources, Legal Matters, NonJudicial Punishment, http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,30901--1,00.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). David S. Cloud, Navy Officer Retracts Confession in Death of Iraqi Prisoner, N.Y. TIMES, May 27, 2005, at A18; Tony Perry, Navy Lieutenant Denies Assaulting Iraqi Prisoner, L.A. TIMES, May 27, 2005, at A31.
140 139

138

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 109

141

David S. Cloud, Navy Officer Found Not Guilty in Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 2005, at A6; Seth Hettena, Navy SEAL Acquitted of Abusing Iraqi Prisoner who Later Died, ASSOC. PRESS, May 28, 2005, available at http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=798587 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
142

David S. Cloud, Navy Officer Found Not Guilty in Death of an Iraqi Prisoner, N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 2005, at A6; Seth Hettena, Navy SEAL Acquitted of Abusing Iraqi Prisoner who Later Died, ASSOC. PRESS, May 28, 2005, available at http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=798587 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
143 144 145 146

Douglas Jehl and Tim Golden, CIA is Likely to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2005, at A6. Mayer, A Deadly Interrogation, supra note 79. Alex Roth, Marine Guilty in Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004 at B1.

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Final Autopsy Report, Autopsy No. A03-51 (Oct. 22, 2003) [Autopsy, Hatab], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 37 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Autopsy, Hatab]; Alex Roth, Marine Guilty in Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004 at B1. Alex Roth, Trial Starts for Marine in Iraqi’s Jail Death; Prosecutor Paints Reservist as Rogue, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Aug. 25, 2004 at NC-1; Alex Roth, Iraqi Prisoner Called Thug for Hussein, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Aug. 27, 2004 at NC-1. One of the accused denied during his court martial proceedings that he had abused Hatab or any other detainee. Alex Roth, Never Abused Iraqi Prisoners, Marine Says At Court-Martial, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Sept. 2, 2004 at NC-1.
148 147

Deborah Hastings, The Death of Iraqi Prisoner No. 0310337, ASSOC. PRESS, July 31, 2004, available at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-8-2004_pg7_40 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); David Hasemyer, Marine Says He was Ordered to Grab Prisoner’s Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2. Philip Sherwell and Colin Freeman, Iraqi Prisoner ‘was beaten, kicked, and left to die by Marines,’ TELEGRAPH, May 23, 2004, at 24; Jeff McDonald, Behavior of Detainee Who Died Is at Issue; Was Iraqi Ill or Just Belligerent, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 5. 2004, at NC1. Alex Roth, Marine Guilty In Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004, at B1; David Hasemyer, Marine Says He was Ordered to Grab Prisoner’s Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2.
151 152 150 149

David Hasemyer, Marine Says He was Ordered to Grab Prisoner’s Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2.

Autopsy, Hatab, supra note 146, at 37 (Hatab pronounced dead at 12:30 a.m.); David Hasemyer, Marine Says He was Ordered to Grab Prisoner’s Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2; Alex Roth, Marine Guilty in Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004, at B1. Seth Hettena, Court Martial Begins in Iraq Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 2, 2004, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6394480/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Three medical experts retained by the different defendants in subsequent courts-martial disputed this finding. Alex Roth, Heart Failure Caused Death of Prisoner, Witness Says; Defense Expert Testifies at Marine’s Court-Martial; SAN DIEGO UNIONTRIB., Sept. 1, 2004, at NC-1. One expert gave the opinion that Hatab likely died of natural causes, probably heart failure. Id. Two experts stated that he likely died of asthma or pneumonia. Id. According to one of the experts, it was hard to pinpoint the cause of death because Hatab’s body was left for four days in extreme heat before the autopsy. Id. Alex Roth, Trial starts for Marine in Iraqi’s Jail Death; Prosecutor Paints Reservist as Rogue, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Aug. 25, 2004, at NC-1 (quoting prosecutor in court martial of one of the Marines charged in connection with Hatab’s death). David Hasemyer, Marine Says He was Ordered to Grab Prisoner’s Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2 (quoting Major William Vickers).
156 157 158 159 160 155 154 153

Id. Id. Id. Id..

Alex Roth, Heart Failure Caused Death of Prisoner, Witness Says; Defense Expert Testifies at Marine’s Court-Martial, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Sept. 1, 2004, at NC-1 (describing pathologist’s testimony).
161 162

Id.

Seth Hettena, Military Loses Key Evidence in Iraqi Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Sept. 9, 2004, available at http://68.166.163.242/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=65771 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

163

Seth Hettena, Army Pathologist Concedes Errors in Prisoner-Abuse Case, Assoc. Press, Oct. 14, 2004, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-14-errors-abuse_x.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (rib cage found at Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington D.C.; part of larynx found at Landstuhl military base in Germany).
164 165

Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 19-20, Law Enforcement Investigations (Nov. 1985), at 200.

Seth Hettena, Court Martial Begins in Iraq Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 2, 2004, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6394480/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Alex Roth, Iraqi’s Body May Be Dug Up Again in Abuse Case, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Oct. 15, 2004, at B3.

166 167

Autopsy, Hatab, supra note 146, at 37; Seth Hettena, Army Pathologist Concedes Errors in Prisoner-Abuse Case, Assoc. Press, Oct. 14, 2004, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-14-errors-abuse_x.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
168 169

Alex Roth, Marines Involved in Iraqi Abuse Frustrated After Their Convictions, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Dec. 13, 2004, at A1. Jonathan Heller, 8 Marine Reservists Charged in Beating Death of Iraqi POW, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Oct. 19, 2003, at A2.

A Human Rights First Report

110 — VIII. Endnotes

Seth Hettena, Court Martial Begins in Iraq Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 2, 2004 available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6394480/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“most of the Marines had their cases dismissed in large part because of the breakdown in forensic evidence that has marred the case”); Alex Roth, Reservist Convicted of Assault on Inmates; Sergeant Acquitted in Iraqi’s Death at Camp, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Sept. 3, 2004, at A1. Seth Hettena, Court Martial Begins in Iraq Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 2, 2004, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6394480/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Jeff McDonald, Behavior of Detainee Who Died Is at Issue; Was Iraqi Ill or Just Belligerent, SAN DIEGO UNIONTRIB., Nov. 5. 2004, at NC-1. Alex Roth, Reservist’s Court Martial Postponed; Defense in Iraqi Death Gets More Prep Time, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., July 29, 2004, at NC-1. Gidget Fuentes, Major Convicted, Avoids Jail Time in Abuse Trial, MARINE CORPS TIMES, Nov. 22, 2004, at 11; Alex Roth, Marine Guilty in Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004, at B1.
174 173 172 171

170

Alex Roth, Judge Postpones a Court-Martial, Rips Prosecutors, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB. Sept. 10, 2004, at B1; Tony Perry, Marine Sentenced for Beating Iraqi Captives, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 4, 2004, at B8.

Katie Thomas, Marines on Trial, N.Y. NEWSDAY, Aug. 30, 2004, at A4; John J. Lumpkin, Details about deaths of prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, ASSOC. PRESS, May 8, 2004, available at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20040508-1007theprisonersdeaths.html (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Jonathan Heller, 8 Marine Reservists Charged in Beating Death of Iraqi POW, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Oct. 19, 2003, at A2..
176

175

Gidget Fuentes, Major Convicted, Avoids Jail Time in Abuse Trial, MARINE CORPS TIMES, Nov. 22, 2004, at 11; Robert Jablon, Witness: Marines Hit Iraq Inmate Who Died, ASSOC. PRESS, Aug. 26, 2004, available at http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/260804marineshit.htm (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
177

R. Jeffrey Smith, Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee who Died, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at A7; Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, Civilian Charged in Beating Death of Afghan Detainee, WASH. POST, June 18, 2004, at A1.

Doubt Cast Over Defense Claim in Afghan Abuse, ASSOC. PRESS, June 20, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5234259/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, Civilian Charged in Beating Death of Afghan Detainee, WASH. POST, June 18, 2004, at A1. Doubt Cast Over Defense Claim in Afghan Abuse, ASSOC. PRESS, June 20, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5234259/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
180 181 179

178

Id.; R. Jeffrey Smith, Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee who Died, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at A7.

U.S. Indicts CIA Contractor in Afghanistan Prison Death, CNN, June 22, 2004, available at http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/afghan.indictment/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Andrea Weigl, Room Designed to Keep Secrets, NEWS AND OBSERVER, Mar. 29, 2005, at B1.
182 183

R. Jeffrey Smith, Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee who Died, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at A7.

Indictment of David Passaro, U.S. v. Passaro, No. 5:04-CR-211-1, June 17, 2004, available at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/uspassaro61704ind.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); R. Jeffrey Smith, Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee who Died, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at A7.
184 185

Andrea Weigl, Trial’s Weight Hinges on Ruling, NEWS AND OBSERVER, Dec. 16, 2005, at B1.

Doubt Cast Over Defense Claim in Afghan Abuse, ASSOC. PRESS, June 20, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5234259/ (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
186 187

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 3.

Indictment of David Passaro, U.S. v. Passaro, No. 5:04-CR-211-1, June 17, 2004, available at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/uspassaro61704ind.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
188 189

See U.S. v. Passaro, No. 04 CR 211-1, E.D.N.C., Order, Dec. 30, 2005.

R. Jeffrey Smith, Interrogator Says U.S. Approved Handling of Detainee who Died, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at A7; Andrea Weigl, Trial’s Weight Hinges on Ruling, NEWS AND OBSERVER, Dec. 16, 2005, at B1.

190

Tim Golden, In U.S. Report, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, N.Y. TIMES, May 20, 2005, at A1 [hereinafter Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths]. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190.

191 192

Tim Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190; Tim Golden, Abuse Cases Open Command Issues at Afghan Prison, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 8, 2005, at A1.
193 194 195 196 197 198 199

Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190.

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Final Report of Postmortem Examination, (Dec. 6-8, 2002) [Autopsy, Habibullah], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf at 19-28 [hereinafter Autopsy, Habibullah].
200

Autopsy, Habibullah, supra note 199, at19-28.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 111

201 202 203 204 205

Tim Golden, Army Faltered in Investigating Detainee Abuse, N.Y. Times, May 22, 2005, at A1. Id. Id. Id.

Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190; Tim Golden, Abuse Cases Open Command Issues at Afghan Prison, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 8, 2005, at A1. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Tim Golden, Case Dropped Against U.S. Officer in Beating Deaths of Afghan Inmates, Jan. 8, 2006, N.Y. TIMES, at A13.

206 207 208

See DIC Table: They are Private First Class (“Pfc.”) Willie Brand (assault, maiming, maltreatment, false statement), Specialist (“Spc.”) Brian Cammack (assault, two counts of false statement), Spc. Glendale Walls (dereliction, assault), Sergeant (“Sgt.”) Anthony Morden (assault, two counts of dereliction), Sgt. Selena Salcedo (dereliction, assault), Sgt. Joshua Claus (maltreatment, assault), Sgt. Christopher Greatorex (assault, maltreatment, false statement), Sgt. Darin Broady (assault, maltreatment, false statement), Sgt. James Boland (maltreatment, dereliction, assault), Sgt. Alan Driver (assault, maltreatment), Staff Sergeant (“Staff Sgt.”) Brian Doyle (dereliction, maltreatment), and Captain (“Capt.”) Christopher Beiring (dereliction, false statement).

See DIC Table: Pfc. Brand (convicted, demoted to Private (“Pvt.”)), Spc. Cammack (pled guilty, 3 months confinement, demoted to Pvt., bad-conduct discharge), Spc. Walls (pled guilty, 2 months confinement, demoted to Pvt., bad-conduct discharge), Sgt. Morden (pled guilty, 75 days confinement, demoted to Pvt., bad-conduct discharge), Sgt. Salcedo (pled guilty, fined $1,000, demoted to Spc. or Corporal, reprimanded), Sgt. Claus (pled guilty, 5 months confinement, demoted to Pvt., bad-conduct discharge), Sgt. Greatorex (acquitted, faces administrative reprimand), Sgt. Broady (acquitted), Sgt. Boland (charges dropped, reprimanded for dereliction); Staff Sgt. Doyle (acquitted in connection with Habibullah’s death); Capt. Beiring (charges dropped, reprimanded).
210 211 212 213 214

209

Id. Tim Golden, Case Dropped Against U.S. Officer in Beating Deaths of Afghan Inmates, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2006, at A13. Id. Id.

Rowan Scarborough, Senior Prison Officer Cleared, WASH. TIMES, Dec. 23, 2005, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051223-121235-3444r.htm (accessed Feb. 13, 2006).
215

A Look at the Soldiers Charged in the Afghanistan Abuse Investigation, ASSOC. PRESS, Oct. 5, 2005, available at http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3942230 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Tim Golden, Case Dropped Against U.S. Officer in Beating Deaths of Afghan Inmates, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2006, at A13.
216

A Look at the Soldiers Charged in the Afghanistan Abuse Investigation, ASSOC. PRESS, Oct. 5, 2005, available at http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3942230 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); see also DIC Table. A charge of involuntary manslaughter was initially brought against Pfc. Brand, but it was dropped before trial. Tim Golden, Abuse Cases Open Command Issues at Army Prison, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 8, 2005, at A1.
217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190.

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Autopsy Examination Report, A0295 (Dec. 13, 2002) [Autopsy, Dilawar], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf at 29-36 [hereinafter Autopsy, Dilawar].
232 233 234 235 236 237

Autopsy, Dilawar, supra note 231, at 29-36. Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190. Tim Golden, Army Faltered in Investigating Detainee Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2005, at A1. Id.; Carlotta Gall, U.S. Military Investigating Death of Afghan in Custody, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 4, 2003, at A14. Tim Golden, Army Faltered on Investigating Detainee Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2005, at A1.

Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190; Tim Golden, Army Faltered on Investigating Detainee Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2005, at A1.

A Human Rights First Report

112 — VIII. Endnotes

238

Golden, Brutal Details Of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, supra note 190; Tim Golden, Army Faltered on Investigating Detainee Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2005, at A1. Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Corrected/Initial/Final/SSI-0171-04-CID259-80223-/5H6 (Aug. 7, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/4894_4927.pdf, at 1 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi]; Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case Of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13.
240 239

Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case Of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13; Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s Death, CHI. TRIB., July 6, 2004, at 4. Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1. Id.

241 242 243

Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case Of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13; Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1. Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case Of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13; Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1. Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1; Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s death, CHI. TRIB., July 6, 2004, at 4.

244

245

246

Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case Of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13; Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1. For a description of administrative investigations, see infra p. 33. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 5. Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s Death, CHI. TRIB., July 6, 2004, at 4 (quoting portions of military’s statements). Id.; Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 16.

247 248 249 250 251 252

The Army’s subsequent criminal investigation into al-Bawi’s death also found that it was a rifle, not a pistol, that al-Bawi allegedly tried to grab from a soldier. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 1. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 5. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 33. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 1.

253 254 255 256

Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 239, at 5; see also Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s Death, CHI. TRIB., July 6, 2004, at 4 (military statement alleging that all shots fired by one soldier).
257 258 259 260

Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s Death, CHI. TRIB., July 6, 2004, at 4. Id. Id.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final (C) – 0149-03-CID469-60209-5H1A (Nov. 23, 2003) [Criminal Investigation, Radad], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1053_1082.pdf, at 2, 15 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Radad].
261 262 263

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2. Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 15.

Dep’t of the Army, Informal Investigation of Shooting of Obeed Hethere Radad (Sept. 13, 2003), available at http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD044873.pdf at 23 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Administrative Investigation, Radad].
264 265 266

Administrative Investigation, Radad, supra note 263, at 22. Administrative Investigation, Radad, supra note 263, at 22.
th

Memorandum for Commander, 4 Infantry Division (Mechanized), FOB Ironhorse, Tikrit, Iraq, AR 15-5 Investigation – Legal Review, Obeed Hethere Radad (Sept. 14, 2003), at 1 (on file with Human Rights First).

267

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2-3 (incident reported on September 15; administrative investigation dated September 14 attached). Memorandum from Spec. Juba Martino-Poole to Commander, 4 Infantry Division, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court Martial (Oct. 16, 2003), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6768_7065.pdf, at 45-46 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
th

268

269

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2; Memorandum from Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno for Commander, 502d Personnel Service Battalion, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6768_7065.pdf, at 53 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
270 271 272

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2. Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 29. Miles Moffeit and Arthur Kane, Iraq GIs Allowed to Avoid Trial, DENVER POST, Aug. 22, 2004, at A1.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 113

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final – 0114-02-CID369-23525 -5H1A, Part 1 (May 23, 2003) [Criminal Investigation, Sayari], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/745_814.pdf, at 11-12, 27 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Sayari].
274 275 276 277

273

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11-12, 27. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27-28. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28.

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 38-46. The criminal investigators found probable cause to charge three members of the squad with the crime of Dereliction of Duty for their failure to abide by standard operating procedures for detaining captives. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 12. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 28.

278 279 280 281 282 283

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27-28, 65-66. The sergeant complied, although the photos were not lost because he had previously made another copy. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 64.
284 285 286

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 19. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 19, 28.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final – 0114-02-CID369-23525 -5H1A, Part 4 (May 23, 2003) [Criminal Investigation, Sayari, Part 4], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/908_963.pdf, at 16 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Sayari, Part 4].
287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27, 31, 64; see also Criminal Investigation, Sayari, Part 4, supra note 286, at 15. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27, 31, 64; see also Criminal Investigation, Sayari, Part 4, supra note 286, at 15. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27; see also Criminal Investigation, Sayari, Part 4, supra note 286, at 15. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 27-28, 65-66. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 29. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1-10.

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1-10; Army: Soldiers Shouldn’t be Charged, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 24, 2005, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863659/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
296

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1; Army: Soldiers Shouldn’t be Charged, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 24, 2005, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863659/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
297 298

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1-10.

Dexter Filkins, The Fall of the Warrior King, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Oct. 23, 2005, at 52 [hereinafter Filkins, Warrior King]; Hamza Hendawi, Iraqi: U.S. Soldiers Laughed at Drowning, ASSOC. PRESS, July 6, 2004, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/200407/07/content_346293.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; U.S. Soldier Goes on Trial for Allegedly Drowning Iraqi Civilian, Xinhua General News Service, Jan. 5, 2005 available at http://english.people.com.cn/200501/05/eng20050105_169731.html (accessed Feb. 7, 2006). Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

299

300 301

Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
302

Hamza Hendawi, Iraqi: U.S. Soldiers Laughed at Drowning, ASSOC. PRESS, July 6, 2004, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/07/content_346293.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.
303

Hamza Hendawi, Iraqi: U.S. Soldiers Laughed at Drowning, ASSOC. PRESS, July 6, 2004, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/07/content_346293.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
304 305

Id.; Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

G.I. Gets 45 Days for Assault of Iraqis, ASSOC. PRESS, Mar. 15, 2005, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7200520/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). See also, Charge Sheet, available at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/063005/11950_12130PartB.pdf , at 80-81 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
306

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Cover-up of Iraq Bridge Incident Admitted, ASSOC. PRESS, July 30, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5560805/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
307 308

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
309

Id.

A Human Rights First Report

114 — VIII. Endnotes

310 311

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Article 32 Investigations, http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/NLSOGlakesArticle_32_investigations.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“grand jury indictment is expressly inapplicable to the Armed Forces. In its absence, Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice … requires a thorough and impartial investigation of charges”).
312

Investigating Officer’s Report of Charges Under Article 32, Aug. 19, 2004, available at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/063005/11950_12130PartB.pdf, at 99-100 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Cover-up of Iraq Bridge Incident Admitted, ASSOC. PRESS, July 30, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5560805/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
314 315 313

Id.; see also Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

Cover-up of Iraq Bridge Incident Admitted, ASSOC. PRESS, July 30, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5560805/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
316

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Suzanne Goldenberg, 45 Days Jail for U.S. Officer Who Had Cousins Thrown Into Tigris, THE GUARDIAN, Mar. 16, 2005, at Home Pages 2.
317

Dick Foster, Case Against 4 GI’s Waning; 2 Won’t Face Charges in Alleged Drowning, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Sept. 9, 2004, at 6A; Dick Foster, Soldier: Iraqis Told to Jump; Several Issues Cloud Army’s Case Against GIs in Drowning, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, July 29, 2004, at 4A; Dick Foster, Fort Carson Soldiers May Use Drug Defense in Courts-Martial, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, July 28, 2004, at 5A.

318

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Human Rights First Email Interview with Dr. Steven Miles, Professor, University of Minnesota Medical School (Nov. 4, 2005) (transcription on file with Human Rights First); for date of death, see Eric Schmitt, Navy Charges 3 Commandos with Beating of Prisoners, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 25, 2004, at A7.
320 319

See DIC Table: The military officially ruled five deaths as due to undetermined causes after investigation (Hasson, al-Obodi, Kenami, F. Mahmood, and F. Najem). Forty-three other deaths have either not been investigated, or the results of any investigation have not been publicly announced or are unclear (Unknown 1, Naseer, el-Gashame, Dababa, Unknown 3, Unknown 4, Unknown 5, Unknown 6, Unknown 8, Unknown 9, Unknown 10, Unknown 11, Unknown 12, Unknown 13, Unknown 14, Unknown 15, al-Izmerly, Unknown 16, Unknown 17, Sher Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Nahar, Unknown 20, Unknown 21, Unknown 23, Unknown 24, Unknown 25, Unknown 26, Unknown 27, Unknown 28, Unknown 29, Sumaidaie, Unknown 30, Unknown 31, Unknown 32, Unknown 33, Unknown 34, Unknown 35, Unknown 36, Unknown 37, Unknown 38, Hamza al-Zubaidi, Unknown 39, Unknown 40).

See DIC Table: Unknown 1 (died in November 2002 in Afghanistan “Salt Pit” prison of hypothermia after being chained to the floor and left without blankets; official cause of death not released); Naseer (allegedly tortured to death by Army Special Forces soldiers in Mar. 2003; official investigation findings not released); al-Sumaidae (unarmed 21-year-old student allegedly killed in cold blood in June 2005 by Marine during a search of his home; case referred to Navy criminal investigators 10 days after death); Dababa (June 2003 autopsy indicates body covered by bruises and at least 50 abrasions, with head and neck suffering the most significant abuses, resulting in hemorrhaging throughout his brain; official cause of death not announced); Kenami (death after detainee subjected to extreme exercise, cuffed, hooded and left in overcrowded cell; cause officially undetermined); al-Izmerly (chief of forensics at Baghdad Hospital found January 2004 death was due to “massive blow” to head; investigation pending); Unknown 15 (U.S. forces allege male shot during home raid while reaching for a pistol; family alleges he was a physically disabled old man and reportedly provides medical records indicating a spinal condition or degeneration; no criminal investigation or any other action appears to have been initiated); Nasef Ibrahim (military ruled death due to natural causes; son, with him at the time, filed lawsuit alleging death from abuse); Khan (military initially stated death due to heart attack, until press reports of snakebite; family alleges abuse; no medical or other investigation records released since death in September 2004); A. Najem (military ruled death from natural causes after hunger strike, but no medical records or interviews in support); Zaid (U.S.-conducted autopsy stated accidental death from heat stroke; army official stated possibility that Zaid was not given enough water or proper care). Human Rights First asked the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 the status of the investigations and any prosecutions in the following cases for which, as of February 10, we had received no response: Naseer; al-Sumaidae; Dababa; Kenami [sought comment on medical expert finding that death caused by suffocation]; al-Izmerly; Ibrahim; Khan; Zaid.
322

321

Dep’t of the Army, AR 15-6 Investigation Into the Death of Abu Malik Kenami (Dec. 28, 2003), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/032505/1281_1380.pdf, at 2, (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Administrative Investigation, Kenami]. Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final – 0140-03-CID389-61697-5H9B (Jan. 1, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Kenami], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1206_1234.pdf, at 1 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Kenami].
324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 323

Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 1. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 16; Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 5 – 6. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 4, 16; Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 19, 26. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 4-5. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 4-5; Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 5-6, 11. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 5. Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 5-6. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 2. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 13.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 115

333 334 335 336

Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 13. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 13. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 13.

Dep’t Administrative Investigation, Kenami, supra note 322, at 1, 2. The administrative investigation made a number of recommendations: 1) that a physical exam be conducted on all detainees, preferably by an Iraqi physician; 2) that facilities be provided for remote audio/video monitoring of the detainee area by an Arabic speaker; 3) that autopsy facilities be created at Mosul. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at

337 338

1.
(forthcoming 2006) (Homicides Chapter, at 15, manuscript

STEVEN MILES, OATH BETRAYED: MILITARY MEDICINE AND THE WAR ON TERROR,

on file with Human Rights First).
339 340 341

Id. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 1.

Miles Moffeit, Brutal Interrogation in Iraq, DENVER POST, May 19, 2004, at A1 (quoting military investigative report); Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Autopsy Examination Report, Autopsy No. ME03-273 (May 11, 2004) [Autopsy, Dababa], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 56 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Autopsy, Dababa]; New Probes of Prison Deaths, ASSOC. PRESS, June 30, 2004, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/02/iraq/main627244.shtml (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Spreadsheet of Military Investigations, (Nov. 5, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 12 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (reporting two detainee deaths on June 13, 2003, one at Camp Cropper, the other at Camp Vigilant, a compound at Abu Ghraib. The death at Abu Ghraib is that of Alla Hassan, see Dep’t of the Army, CID, Report of Investigation – Final/SSI – 0145-04-CID146-71444-5H9C2 / 5H6 / 5Y3 (Oct. 26, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Hassan], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/4193_4332.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351

Miles Moffeit, Brutal Interrogation in Iraq, DENVER POST, May 19, 2004, at A1. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 56. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 56. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 56. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 58-61. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at.58-61. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 58-61. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 59. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 60.

John Lumpkin, 9 Prisoner Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan Probed as Homicides, ASSOC. PRESS, May 23, 2004, available at http://www.news-star.com/stories/052304/New_31.shtml (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final/SSI – 0237-04-CID259-80273-5H9B (Oct. 18, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Hasson], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/4153_4192.pdf , at 2 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Hasson].
353 354 355 352

Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 1-2. Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 6.

Investigators contacted the current and former Detainee Operations officers for the camp, the U.S. field hospital staff, officials at a British hospital, and requested searches of Military Police, Military Intelligence, and medical databases. Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 4, 8..
356 357 358 359

See generally, Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352. Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 1-2. Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 19.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation Final Supplemental /SSI Report -0007-04-CID259-80133-5H9A (Aug. 23, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1443_1479.pdf, at 1 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim].
360 361 362 363

Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 7 – 8. Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 4. Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 9.

Third Amended Complaint, Saleh v. Titan Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1165 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Sept. 12, 2005), ¶¶135-139. See also Tom Squitieri, Documents Give Different Explanation for Inmate’s Death, USA TODAY, June 28, 2004, at 2A. Third Amended Complaint, Saleh v. Titan Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1165 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Sept. 12, 2005), ¶¶135-139. See also Tom Squitieri, Documents Give Different Explanation for Inmate’s Death, USA TODAY, June 28, 2004, at 2A.
365 366 367 368 364

Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 9. Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 9. Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391. Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391.

A Human Rights First Report

116 — VIII. Endnotes

369 370 371 372

Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391. Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 4. Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final(C)- 0025-03-CID919-63733, at 41-43 (Feb. 4, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1727_1780.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi].
373 374 375 376 377 378

Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 7. Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 41-43. Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 35-36. Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 1. Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 48.

Charles Hanley, Heat on U.S. Over Iraqi Weapons Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 21, 2005; Sinan Salaheddin, Family of Iraqi Scientist Welcomes Probe, ASSOC. PRESS, Mar. 27, 2005, available at http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-745460.php (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe]; Luke Harding, I Will Always Hate You People, THE GUARDIAN, May 24, 2004, at Home Pages 1. Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378; Luke Harding, I Will Always Hate You People, THE GUARDIAN, May 24, 2004, at Home Pages 1.
380 381 382 383 379

Luke Harding, I Will Always Hate You People, THE GUARDIAN, May 24, 2004, at Home Pages 1. Id. Id.; Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378.

Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378; Charles Hanley, Heat on U.S. Over Iraqi Weapons Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 21, 2005. Luke Harding, Family’s Fury at Mystery Death, THE GUARDIAN, May 24, 2004, at Home Pages 1; Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378.

384

385

Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378 (“Now the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command in Washington, after an inquiry by The Associated Press, says it has reopened an investigation into what it calls a previously closed case.”); Charles Hanley, Heat on U.S. Over Iraqi Weapons Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 21, 2005. Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378; Charles Hanley, Heat on U.S. Over Iraqi Weapons Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 21, 2005. Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378. Charles Hanley, Experts Urge Release of Iraq Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 17, 2005.
STEVEN MILES, OATH BETRAYED: MILITARY MEDICINE AND THE WAR ON TERROR,

386

387 388 389

(forthcoming 2006) (Homicides Chapter, at 15, manuscript

on file with Human Rights First).
390

See DIC Table: Deaths likely caused by heart attack: Mahmood (age unknown, death certificate reportedly identified cardiac arrest, but cause of death officially undetermined); Mohammed Hamza al-Zubaidi (age 67, death reportedly by heart attack but no investigative findings); Unknown 3 (age 60; administrative investigation discussed but didn’t rule on heart attack as cause); Unknown 17 (age unknown; death reportedly by heart attack but investigative findings unknown); Unknown 23 (age 31; death reportedly by heart attack but investigative findings unknown); Unknown 29 (age 30 reportedly by heart attack but investigative findings unknown); Unknown 33 (age 65, reportedly by heart attack but investigative findings unknown); Unknown 36 (age 43; reportedly by heart attack but investigative findings unknown); Unknown 38 (age 65 reportedly by heart attack but no investigative findings); Unknown 11 (age unknown; death reportedly by heart attack, but investigative findings unknown). Deaths likely caused by heart disease: A. Najem (age approx. 50; death from heart disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Mihdy (age unknown; death from arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Spah (age approx. 50; death from arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease after hunger strike; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Taleb (age approx. 40; death from arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Ibrahim (age 63, death from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation determined further investigation would be of little value); al-Hussen (age 25; death from myocarditis; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Ahmed (age 61; death from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Abbas (age 55; death from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found probable death from the disease); Altia (age: approx. 65; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); al-Razak (age 52; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; criminal investigation found death from natural causes); Unknown 35 (age 60; heart failure after surgery; investigative findings unknown or not available). Of these 21 deaths, military investigators determined: eight were due to natural causes; the probable cause in one was heart disease; in one the cause is officially undetermined; in one investigators found further investigation would not be helpful. Of the remaining 11 deaths, official investigative findings are not known or not publicly available.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental- 0136-03-CID259-61187-5H9A (June 4, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Najem], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/24TF.pdf, at 1, 34 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Najem].
392 393

391

Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 34. Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 1, 3.

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 117

394 395 396

Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 4. Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 29.

Third Amended Complaint, Saleh v. Titan Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1165 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed Sept. 12, 2005), ¶¶135-139. See also Tom Squitieri, Documents Give Different Explanation for Inmate’s Death, USA TODAY, June 28, 2004, at 2A (reporting allegation that Ibrahim had been doused with cold water over three days; he then became ill and died three days later).
397

Dep’t of the Army, the Inspector General, DETAINEE OPERATIONS INSPECTION (July 21, 2004), at 76, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/abuse/mikolashekdetaineereport.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
398 399

Id. at 1-3.

Rights Group Puts Rumsfeld on Spot over Afghan Deaths, REUTERS, Dec. 14, 2004, available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1214-02.htm (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
400

Afghan who died in U.S. custody complained of snake bite, American commander says, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 3, 2005, available at http://www.fox23news.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=B22E7E94-260B-4D5A-9AE5-D194D5F59C4F (accessed Feb. 7, 2006). U.S. Investigates 8 Afghan Prison Deaths, ASSOC. PRESS, Dec. 13, 2004; Rights Group Puts Rumsfeld on Spot over Afghan Deaths, REUTERS, Dec. 14, 2004, available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1214-02.htm (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Afghan who died in U.S. custody complained of snake bite, American commander says, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 3, 2005, available at http://www.fox23news.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=B22E7E94-260B-4D5A-9AE5-D194D5F59C4F (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
402 401

Afghan who died in U.S. custody complained of snake bite, American commander says, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 3, 2005, available at http://www.fox23news.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=B22E7E94-260B-4D5A-9AE5-D194D5F59C4F (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
403

R. Jeffrey Smith, Army Reprimand Reported in Slaying, WASH. POST, Dec. 14, 2004, at A24; Letter from Human Rights Watch to Secretary Rumsfeld (Dec. 13, 2004), available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/10/afghan9838_txt.htm (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).

404

Afghan Who Died in U.S. Custody Complained of Snake Bite, American Commander Says, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 3, 2005, available at http://www.fox23news.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=B22E7E94-260B-4D5A-9AE5-D194D5F59C4F (accessed Feb. 7, 2006). Id.; U.S. Army Acknowledges Eight Deaths in Military Custody in Afghanistan, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, Dec. 14, 2004, available at http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2004/12/13/682161 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Human Rights First submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the criminal investigation into Khan’s death to the Crime Records Center on July 25, 2005, and a request to the Army Medical Command for Khan’s final autopsy report on July 21, 2005. The autopsy request was denied on Oct. 31, 2005 based on privacy grounds, while the criminal investigation request remains pending as of February 2006.
406 405

Afghan Who Died in U.S. Custody Complained of Snake Bite, American Commander Says, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 3, 2005, available at http://www.fox23news.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=B22E7E94-260B-4D5A-9AE5-D194D5F59C4F (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, ‘One Huge U.S Jail’, THE GUARDIAN, Mar. 19, 2005, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1440836,00.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
407 408 409 410 411

Craig Pyes and Mark Mazzetti, U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 21, 2004, at A1. Id. Id. Id.

Id.; Craig Pyes, A Torture Killing by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Crimes of War Project, Sept. 20, 2004, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); see also Amended Complaint, Ali, et al., v. Rumsfeld, et al. No. 05-CV-1377 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 5, 2006), ¶¶172-188.
412

Craig Pyes, A Torture Killing by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Crimes of War Project, 9/20/04, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
413 414

Id.; see also Amended Complaint, Ali, et al., v. Rumsfeld, et al. No. 05-CV-1377 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 5, 2006), ¶174.

Craig Pyes, A Torture Killing by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Crimes of War Project, 9/20/04, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
415 416 417

Id. Craig Pyes and Mark Mazzetti, U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 21, 2004, at A1.

Craig Pyes for the Crimes of War Project, A Torture Killing by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, Sept. 20, 2004, available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425

Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id.

Press Briefing with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Office of the Press Secretary (Nov. 2, 2005), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051102-10.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
426

See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 29 (investigation was “not completely thorough (i.e. [failure to collect] the weapon [allegedly used in the killing] for fingerprint analysis)”); Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – 3D Final Supplemen-

A Human Rights First Report

118 — VIII. Endnotes

tal - 0013-04-CID789-83982 (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1480_1541.pdf, at 55 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006) (review “disclosed the investigation was weak in the areas of thoroughness and documentation” because, inter alia, “the photographs … were not taken consistent with the requirements or protocols of a homicide investigation,” the decision not to request an autopsy “should [have been] explained somewhere in the report,” and “agents should have conducted a thorough investigation of detainee’s remains.”); Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 29 (“investigation did not conduct a crime scene examination … did not conduct interviews of those witnesses who found the victim … no effort [was] made to interview the alleged brother and son of the victim.”); Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final – 0140-03-CID389-61697-5H9B (Jan. 1, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Kareem], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1206_1234.pdf, (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (investigation “was weak in Thoroughness and Timeliness … no documentation … explaining the lack of an autopsy … [n]o interrogators were interviewed … [the file] does not mention the presence, or lack of, signs of a struggle, or of blood or body fluids.”). The term “commander” is a functional one, used by the U.S. Armed Forces to refer to a variety of top officers: brigades, battalions, regiments, and companies all have commanding officers, and each exercises broad discretion over the soldiers in their command. See Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, §1-5, (Feb. 1, 2006), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf at 78 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (“[t]he key elements of command are authority and responsibility…. The commander is responsible for establishing leadership climate of the unit and developing disciplined and cohesive units…. The commanding officer… assigns appropriate duties [to soldiers].”). Army regulations regularly use the blanket term to set out broad policy directives. See, e.g. Army Regulation 360-1, The Army Public Affairs Program, §1-5, Oct. 15, 2000 (assigning responsibilities to “[a]ll commanders,” “Major Army Commander commanders,” “installation commanders,” and “local commanders.”). In the context of the death investigations discussed here, “commander” refers to officer-rank personnel with authority over subordinate enlisted soldiers and, as applicable, over other officers. See DIC Table: The findings in this chapter are based on a review of the administrative and criminal investigation records of 41 deaths; the records of any investigations into the remaining 57 deaths in custody have not been made publicly available. Of these 41 deaths for which military investigation records have been publicly released, 32 are records of Army criminal investigations, covering 37 deaths. These records cover the deaths of: Kenami, Spah, al-Obodi, Abbas, Kadir, Sayari, Zaid, Byaty, Taleb, A. Najem, Mihdy, al-Haddii, alJuwadi, H. Ahmed, Basim, F. Mahmood, Amir, [Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, Thawin], al-Bawi, Fadil, Altia, Ibrahim, Abdullah, [K. Mahmood, Farhan], Jabar, al-Hussen, al-Razak, Hasson, A. Hassan, F. Najem, [Habib, Ghafar], Radad (square brackets denote multiple deaths covered in a single investigation). The Army has also publicly released nine administrative investigations (described below). For six of the administrative investigations (which cover nine deaths, Radad, Kenami, H. Ahmed, [Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, Thawin], Jabar, A. Hassan) criminal investigation records were also released. For another three administrative investigations, each covering a single death (Unknown 3, Unknown 4 and Unknown 5), no corresponding criminal investigation records have been released. Only one Navy criminal investigation, into the death of Hemdan Haby Heshfan el-Gashame, has been publicly released. No details of investigations into CIA involvement in any of the deaths have been released. Depending on the service, investigations may be conducted by the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), or the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. See, respectively, Army Regulation 195-1, Army Criminal Investigation Program (Aug. 12, 1974), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_1.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006); SECNAV Instruction 5520.3B, Criminal and Security Investigations and Related Activities Within the Dep’t of the Navy (Jan. 4, 1993), available at http://neds.daps.dla.mil/Directives/5520b3.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006); Army Regulation 195-7/AFR 124-19, Criminal Investigative Support to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) (Apr. 25, 1986), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_7.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
430 429 428 427

The Army’s Criminal Investigation Division is required to investigate any death in which a member of the Armed Forces is involved, including both U.S. soldiers and their prisoners or detainees, as prescribed in Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities, Appendix B (Oct. 30, 1985), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_2.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).

Two series of military regulations detail the investigative procedures that Army CID must follow: Army Regulation Series 195, which is publicly available (see Official Dep’t of the Army Administrative Publications, 195 Series Collection, available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/195_Series_Collection_1.html (accessed Feb. 8, 2006); and CID Regulation Series 195, which is not publicly available. Human Rights First attempted to obtain copies of the CID Regulation series both from CID Headquarters and from the Department of Defense. According to the Department of Defense Public Affairs Office, the CID Regulation Series 195 is “a non-releasable document and is protected under a law enforcement exemption.” Email from Maj. Wayne Marotto, Public Affairs Staff Officer, Dep’t of the Army, to Human Rights First, Feb. 10, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First). A single duty day is the equivalent of a single business day in the Army. See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, 121 Signal Battalion, Policy Memorandum 15 (June 24, 2003), available at http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/Units/121sig/Policy_Letters/121%20Bn%20Policy%2015%20Battalion%20Rhythm.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Initial/SSI - 0040-04-CID469-79638-5H1A, (Apr. 30, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Kadir], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/5399_5486.pdf at 49 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Kadir].
434 433 432 st

431

Army Regulation 15-6, Procedure for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers (Sept. 30, 1996), available at http://www.usma.edu/EO/regspubs/r15_6.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter AR 15-6].
435 436

AR 15-6, supra note 434, at § 1-4(d).

Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities, Appendix B (Oct. 30, 1985), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_2.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). (CID is required to investigate the death of anyone in which the Armed Forces were involved, including both soldiers and detainees, as prescribed in Appendix B.). Each Army command unit is assigned a Staff Judge Advocate office, which is required to provide legal services to the command. Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 27-100, Legal Support to Operations, 2.1.7 (Mar. 1, 2000), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-100/index.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
438 437

See, e.g., Staff Judge Advocate of the Commandant of the Marine Corps , Military Justice Fact Sheets, Reporting Crime and First Stages of Investigation in the Military, http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/JAM/MJFACTSHTS.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“[t]o help commanders

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 119

decide how to resolve charges, commanders must make a “preliminary inquiry” into any allegations against a member of the command under military procedural Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) found in the Manual for Courts-Martial….The commander can conduct this inquiry himself, appoint someone else in his command to do it, or, as happens in very serious cases, request assistance from civilian or military criminal investigative agencies….When the commander finishes the preliminary inquiry, he must make a decision on how to resolve the case. Unlike civilian communities, where a district attorney decides whether or not to “press” charges, in the military, commanders make that decision.”) See, e.g., id. (“The commander could decide that no action at all is warranted. Or he could take administrative action, such as an admonition or reprimand, or making an adverse comment in performance evaluations, or seeking discharge of the member from the service. The commander also possesses nonjudicial punishment authority under the procedures of Article 15, UCMJ. The commander may also determine that criminal charges are appropriate. The “preferral” of charges, similar to “swearing out a complaint” in civilian jurisdictions, initiates the court martial process”). See, e.g., id. There are three different levels of court martial – summary, special and general – with general court martial, the military’s highest level trial court, used for the most serious offenses, including charges of murder or manslaughter. See Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter IV: Court Martial Jurisdiction, § 816, Art. 816, available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20IV.%20COURT-MARTIAL%20JURISDICTION (accessed Feb. 3. 2006); Military.com, Benefits and Legal Matters, Legal Matters: Courts-Martial, http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,30902--1,00.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Manual for Courts-martial, United States (2005 Edition), available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). See Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter VIII: Sentences, § 858a, Art. 58, available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20IV.%20COURT-MARTIAL%20JURISDICTION (accessed Feb. 3. 2006); Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter VIII: Sentences, § 852, Art. 52(2), available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER%20IV.%20COURT-MARTIAL%20JURISDICTION (accessed Feb. 3. 2006) (“[n]o person may be sentenced by life imprisonment or to confinement for more than ten years, except by the concurrence of threefourths of the members at the time the vote is taken”). Manual for Courts-martial, United States (2005 Edition), Rule 1003, available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006), at 173 – 177. Human Rights First Telephone Interview with Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General of the Southeast Regional Army Medical Command (Nov. 10, 2005) (notes on file with Human Rights First). Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 27-1, Legal Guide for Commanders, Chapter 8 (Jan. 13, 1992), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/Ch8.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). The same is true for physical evidence. As the Army Field Manual for Law Enforcement Investigations states, “physical evidence is one of [an investigator’s] most valuable investigative assets.” Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 19-20, Law Enforcement Investigations (Nov. 25, 1985), available at https://134.11.61.26/CD7/Publications/DA/FM/FM%2019-20%2019851125.pdf, at 9 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); see also Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 19-20, Law Enforcement Investigations, (Nov. 25, 1985), at 10 (“[t]o achieve the maximum benefit from physical evidence, you must be not only skilled in its collection, but careful in your handling of it to preserve it for laboratory examination and/or for presentation in court. You must retain the item’s evidential integrity by keeping the item as nearly as possible in its original condition.”) (emphasis in original).
444 443 442 441 440 439

Recognizing these dangers, Army Regulation 195-5 sets out 28 pages of detailed procedures on the proper handling and storage of physical evidence. Army Regulation 195-5, Evidence Procedures (Aug. 28, 1992).

Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Procedures for Investigation into Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of the Armed Forces of the United States (June 9, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/navy3797.3798.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Dep’t of Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Corrected Final – (C) 0264-03-CID259-61231/5H6 (Aug. 7, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, and Thawin], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1902_1950.pdf at 29 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, and Thawin] (reporting that “due to the daily operations at the Abu Ghraib Prison, every soldier in the incident could not be located and/or were on duty”), but see id., at 2-3 (listing as attachments around ten sworn statements as well as canvass interviews); see also Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final Supplemental - 0004-04-CID789-83980-5H6-5Y3, (July 22, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Amir], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2156_2205.pdf, at 16–18 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (noting difficulty interviewing detainee witness to a riot shooting death, but agents spoke to medical personnel, the shooters, and numerous other witnesses).
447 446

445

See DIC Table: Habibullah (victim’s blood stored in the butter dish of investigating agents’ refrigerator, records and logs lost during the course of investigation), Dilawar (records lost during the course of the investigation); Hatab (medical evidence lost and destroyed due to lax handling); Jabar (no evidence collected from scene, including weapon and shells); al-Obodi (no fingerprints of deceased taken); A. Najem (no crime scene examination, no photographs); Radad (investigators did not collect weapon used in the killing); Kenami (crime scene examination incomplete); Ibrahim (no crime scene investigation conducted); Amir (crime scene investigation not conducted); Farhan and K. Mahmood (no crime scene examination conducted, photographs of victim and scene inadequate, no death certificates collected); al-Bawi (criminal investigator failed to collect any evidence supporting the conclusions of a prior investigation); F. Mahmood (no crime scene exam conducted); Ghafar and Habib (no crime scene investigation conducted).

448

Seth Hettena, Army Pathologist Concedes Errors in Prisoner-Abuse Case, Assoc. Press, Oct. 14, 2004, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-14-errors-abuse_x.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (rib cage found at Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington D.C.; part of larynx found at Landstuhl military base in Germany).
449 450 451

Alex Roth, Marines involved in Iraqi abuse frustrated after their convictions THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Dec. 13, 2004, at A1. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 2. Criminal Investigation, Kenami, supra note 323, at 13.

A Human Rights First Report

120 — VIII. Endnotes

See DIC Table: Habibullah (investigators failed to interview commanders and guards in original investigation); Dilawar (investigators failed to interview commanders and guards in original investigation, as well as an interrogator who later came forward to describe abuse); Jabar (7 interview-related leads remained open when case was closed); Hussain (witnesses, including other detainees, were not interviewed); Byaty (medics who tended to detainee not interviewed); Najem (no interviews with any witnesses to the death, nor with an Iraqi who had provided medical care to the detainee); Unknown 4 (no interviews of other detainees); Zaid (medical personnel not interviewed); Kenami (no interviews conducted with interrogators, doctor who filled out death certificate, one medic, guards, or other detainees); Ibrahim (no interviews with witnesses present at death, including son of detainee who later alleged detainee was abused); Abdullah (no interviews of other detainee witnesses); F. Mahmood (some medical personnel not interviewed); al-Bawi (no interviews of any person conducted); Fadil (no interview of possible medical witness).
453 454 455

452

Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359, at 7, 23-25, 29. Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 34.

See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 19-20, Law Enforcement Investigations (Nov. 1985), available at https://134.11.61.26/CD7/Publications/DA/FM/FM%2019-20%2019851125.pdf, at 174 (evidentiary value of some medical evidence may be reduced by delayed examination), 176 (physical evidence may be destroyed if not secured promptly), 243 (delaying interviews allows suspects to coordinate their testimony and destroy evidence) (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
456

See Dep’t of Army, Field Manual 27-1, Legal Guide for Commanders, Chapter 8 (Jan. 13, 1992), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/ ) (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Army Regulation 190-40, Serious Incident Report (Jun. 15, 2005), available at http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_40.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). Appendix C-1(g) lists “all prisoner deaths” as Category-2 Reportable Serious Incidents, Section 3-2(b) mandates the same 24-hour reporting period, and Section 3-5(a) also includes the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (CID) as an addressee of the report. The revised version of this regulation, issued June 15, 2005, contains identical requirements (section 2-3(g) lists “all prisoner deaths” as Category-2 Reportable Serious Incidents; 3-2(b) requires that Category-2 incidents be reported within 24 hours; 3-5(a) requires that all Serious Incident Reports be sent to CID); see also Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Procedures for Investigation into Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of the Armed Forces of the United States (June 9, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/navy3797.3798.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (the June 7, 2004 memorandum modifies an Army CID Regulation that is not publicly available; it is not, therefore, clear what was the prior requirement of this specific regulation); Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Initial/Final SSI – 0037-04-CID201-54050 (Nov. 16, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/042105/9290_9388.pdf, at 68-69 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); United States Marine Corps, Military Police in Support of the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force], MCWP 3-34. §1,5-4 (“[u]pon receiving information concerning alleged war crimes committed by Marines, commanders must immediately notify the nearest CID field office.”). Army Regulation 95-1, Army Criminal Investigation Program, §3(b) (Aug. 12, 1974) (commanders “will insure that known or suspected criminal activity is reported to the military police and, when appropriate, to CID for investigation.”).
459 460 461 462 458 457

Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities, §1-4(d) (Oct. 30, 1985). Army Regulation 190-45, Law Enforcement Reporting, §3-1(a) (Jun. 6, 2005). Army Regulation 360-1, The Army Public Affairs Program, §5-45, (Oct. 15, 2000).

Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, §5-8(1)(a) (July 15, 1999) (after a report of investigation has been forwarded to a commander, “the case will be disposed of at the lowest level having authority consistent with the gravity of the case.”).

463

See Dep’t of Army Field Manual 27-1, Legal Guide for Commanders, Chapter 3 (Jan. 13, 1992), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/ ) (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“Investigators must always remain impartial. A one-sided investigation may result in an injustice to the accused and an embarrassment to the command”); United States Marine Corps, Military Police in Support of the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force], MCWP 3-34.1, §5-4 (Oct. 13, 2000) (“Commanders are prohibited from interfering with the investigations or impeding the use of investigative techniques.”)
464

United States Marine Corps, Military Police in Support of the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force], MCWP 3-34.1, §5-4 (Oct. 13, 2000). See Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 28. See supra note 428 for details of the number of military criminal and administrative investigation records released.

465 466 467

See, e.g., Radad (review found that failure to collect evidence jeopardized any possible prosecution), Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 28–29); Taleb (review found that autopsy report had not been received, Dep’t of the Army, CID, Report of Investigation – Final Supplemental – 0147-03-CID259-61195-5H9A (June 3, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Taleb], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/23TFa.pdf, at 5 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Taleb]); Abed Najem (review found that “the investigation was operationally insufficient and was administratively insufficient” due to lack of interviews and records, Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 34).
468

See criminal investigation reports for: Ibrahim (Criminal Investigation, Ibrahim, supra note 359; Abdullah (Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation- Corrected Final (C)/SSI- 0036-04-CID259-80151 (Aug. 20, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Abdullah] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1872_1901.pdf, at 1-2, 6-7 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Abdullah]); Byaty (Criminal Investigation Byaty supra note 476); Mihdy (Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation Final Supplemental – 0239-03-CID259-61189-5H9A, (Jun. 4, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Mihdy] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1542_1582.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Mihdy]); Najem (Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391);Taleb (Criminal Investigation, Taleb, supra note 467); Zaid (Dep’t of the Army CID, CID Report of Investigation – Initial/Final C/SSI – 0168-04-CID899-81718-5H8, (May 31, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Zaid] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2206_2216.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006)); al-Hussen (Dep’t of the Army CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final Supplemental 0012-04-CID259-80136-5H9A, (Sept. 3, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Hussen] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1837_1871.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, al-Hussen]).

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 121

469 470

The earliest death in this group was that of Byaty, which occurred on August 7, 2003. Criminal Investigation, Byaty infra note 476, at 1.

Dep’t of the Army, CID to Commander, Request for Investigation 0370-04-CID001, (Sept. 7, 2004) (“A review of unclassified military intelligence files revealed a spreadsheet titled ‘PMO Detainee Not in Camp Roster’ which documented eight detainee deaths, four of which were previously documented under a CID Report of Investigation.”). Army CID was not the only agency to initiate such a review in May 2004. When the Abu Ghraib abuses became public, the FBI sent a request to all of its agents who had served in Guantanamo Bay for information related to prisoner abuses. See E-mail from Steven C. McGraw to multiple redacted recipients, Subject GTMO (July 7, 2004, 02:10 PM EST) available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_3944_3947.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Several previously unreported incidents – later substantiated by an official Pentagon investigation – came to light as a result. Dep’t of the Army, Army Regulation 15-6: Final Report: Investigation Into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Detention Facility, (Jun. 9, 2005) available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050714report.pdf, at 2 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
471 472

Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 2.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Final/SSI – 0236-04-CID259-80272-5H9B, (Aug. 3, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Mashnadane] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/5000_5014.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). CID agents later found that Mashnadane’s death had previously been investigated. This was a death caused by mortar attack, so although it is included in our total count of deaths in U.S. custody, it is not included in the sample analyzed in the DIC Table. See supra note 1. See DIC Table: Sayari (death not reported to criminal investigators by Special Forces commanders; criminal investigation began only after sergeant reported possible war crime to investigators); Unknown 2 (case does not appear to have been reported; came to light during the course of another criminal investigation 20 months after the death); Jabar (allegedly shot and killed during escape attempt; death not reported by commanders and investigation did not begin until a year later); Hassan (shooting of detainee during prison riot not reported; investigation not begun until 13 months after death); Byaty (investigation does not appear to have begun until nine months after death; reason unknown); Naseer (allegedly tortured to death by Special Forces; initial criminal investigation opened nine months after death, closed for lack of leads, reopened a year and a half after death); Hasson (death not reported; criminal investigation opened one year after death of detainee for whom no records but name, identification number and location of death were known); Radad (death not reported to criminal investigators until after administrative investigation); Unknown 6 (criminal investigation appears only to have opened 10 months after death, following ICRC report of death); al-Izmerly (criminal investigators not informed of death of high-value detainee until after body had been released, precluding a U.S. autopsy); Hassoun (commanders attempted to conceal detainee’s death by drowning); Unknown 15 (death of man military claims was shot when he reached for a pistol does not appear to have been criminally investigated; family claims the man was elderly and disabled); al-Bawi (death does not appear to have been reported to criminal investigators; only administrative investigation originally conducted); Salman, Sayar, Shalaan, Thawin (deaths during prison riot not reported to criminal investigators for at least a week by which time body of one decedent had been taken away and could not be examined). Among documents produced by the military in response to FOIA litigation is a spreadsheet dated November 5, 2004, listing cases of alleged abuse and deaths under investigation. The spreadsheet contains a “Rpt. by” column, in which the entries for 17 of the deaths include “Taguba report,” “AFIP [Armed Forces Institute of Pathology],” and “ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] Report” – i.e. entities other than the unit commanders who are obligated to report deaths to criminal investigators. Spreadsheet of Military Investigations (dated Nov. 5, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 11-21 (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
475 476 474 473

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 5.

Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation – Initial/Final C/SSI – 0167-04-CID899-81717 (May 31, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Byaty], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/535_544.pdf, at 5 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Byaty].
477 478

Criminal Investigation Byaty supra note 476, at 29, 48.

Office of the Armed Forces Med. Exam’r, Autopsy Examination Report, ME03-385, (Sept. 29, 2003) [Autopsy, Byaty], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/m001_203.pdf, at 77 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
479 480 481 482

Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378. Criminal Investigation, Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, and Thawin, supra note 446, at 10. Criminal Investigation, Hasson, supra note 352, at 1-2.

Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities, § 1-5a (Oct. 30, 1985), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_2.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006); Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 19-10, Military Police Law and Order Operations, Ch 14: MPI and USACIDC (Sept. 30, 1987), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1910/index.html (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
483

Dep’t of the Army, CID, General Questions About CID, How many people are in CID?, http://www.cid.army.mil/faqs.htm#faq2 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).

Dep’t of the Army, CID, General Questions About CID, What is CID’s mission?, http://www.cid.army.mil/faqs.htm#faq1 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 23. Throughout the investigative process, the investigating agents draw up drafts of what will be, at the completion of the investigation, a final Report of Investigation. A Report of Investigation is defined as “an official written record of all pertinent information and facts obtained in a criminal investigation.” Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities (Oct. 30, 1985), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r195_2.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
486 487 485

484

See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2.

See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental/SSI- 0071-04-CID065-62019 (Sept. 2, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Jabar], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1121_1144.pdf, at 12 (accessed Jan. 30, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, Jabar].
488

See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 12.

A Human Rights First Report

122 — VIII. Endnotes

489 490 491 492

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 12–17. See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 22. See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, Salman, Shalaan, Sayar, and Thawin, supra note 446, at 8 – 9.

See, e.g., Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental- 0016-04-CID789-83983, (July 22, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, F. Mahmood], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_1181_1205.pdf, at 2 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, F. Mahmood].
493 494

See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, F. Mahmood, supra note 492, at 24.

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 1 (“it is important to note that CID does not charge persons with a crime, that is the responsibility of the appropriate commanders and their legal staffs”) (emphasis in original).
495

Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, AR 15-6, INVESTIGATION OF THE 800 MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE, Feb. 2004, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/800th_MP_Brigade_MASTER14_Mar_04-dc.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter TAGUBA
REPORT].
496

TH

See supra note 428 for details of the number of military criminal and administrative investigation records released. Based on references in the 32 publicly-released criminal investigation reports, press accounts, and reports of administrative investigations that have been publicly released, Human Rights First has identified 12 cases of overlap, covering 15 detainee deaths. See DIC Table: The deaths are those of Kenami, H. Ahmed, Sayar, Salman, Shalaan, Thawin , Jabar, A. Hassan, Radad, Kadir, Sayari, al-Bawi, Mowhoush, Dilawar, and Habibullah. Based on a review of the publicly released investigation reports, administrative and criminal investigations were concurrent in three cases: Mowhoush, Kenami and Hassan Ahmed. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 5. Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 29.

497 498 499

Dep’t of the Army, CID,CID Report of Investigation – Initial/Final SSI-0037-04-CID201-54050, (Nov. 16, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/042105/9290_9388.pdf, at 70 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (stipulating that if “an AR 15-6 investigation or equivalent” was conducted “prior to notifying CID of an allegation … the supporting CID element will obtain a copy of and review the inquiry to determine if it thoroughly and fairly investigated the incident(s) … if further investigative efforts are deemed appropriate, the supporting CID element will initiate an ROI to continue the investigation.”).
500 501

Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 5.

Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1; Liz Sly, Family Prods Military on Iraqi’s Death, CHI. TRIB., July 5, 2004, at 4. Jackie Spinner, Family Seeks Justice in Case of Iraqi Slain by U.S. Troops, WASH. POST, June 15, 2004, at A13; Thanassis Cambanis, Shooting Death Angers Iraqi Family, BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 2004, at A1..
503 504 505 506 502

Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 21 – 28. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 8. Criminal Investigation, al-Bawi, supra note 71, at 1.

Criminal Investigation, Jabar, supra note 487, at 5. The administrative investigation report was released independent of the criminal investigation report, as one of the annexes to the report of Major General Taguba. TAGUBA REPORT, supra note 495.
507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519

Criminal Investigation, Jabar, supra note 487, at 12. Criminal Investigation, Jabar, supra note 487, at 2, 14. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 1-4a. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 1-1. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-1a(3). AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 1-4b, 2-1b. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-1c.. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 5. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-3. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-3b. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-3a.. AR 15-6, supra note 434, at 2-1a.

See, e.g., Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, arts. 70 (requiring prisoners of war be allowed to send a card to their families with details of their capture and health), 122 (requiring states to set up an information bureau to gather and transmit information on the identity, health, and death of all prisoners of war) , available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, arts. 106 (requiring civilian internees be allowed to send a card to their families with details of their capture and health), 136, 138 (requiring states to set up an information bureau to gather and transmit information on the identity, health, and death of civilian internees), available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). See, e.g., Dep’t of Defense, Directive No. 2310.1, Dep’t of Defense Program for Enemy Prisoners of War and Other Detainees, D.2 (Aug. 18, 1994), available at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d2310_01.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“[t]he Secretary of the Army [shall] … [d]evelop and provide policy and planning guidance for the treatment, care, accountability, legal status, and administrative procedures
520

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 123

to be followed about [detainees, and] ensure that a national-level information center exists that can fully serve to account for all persons who pass through the care, custody, and control of the U.S. Military Services”); see also Army Regulation 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees, 1-7 (Oct. 1, 1997), available at http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_8.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (requiring that information on detainees be collected and stored, including “[c]apturing unit,” “[c]ircumstances of capture,” and “personal data [on]… state of health, and changes to this data”); Army Regulation 40-66, Medical Record Administration and Health Care Documentation, 1-4(h) (July 20, 2004), available at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r40_66.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) (“[h]ealth-care providers will promptly and correctly record all patient observations, treatment, and care”). See DIC Table: Unknown 1 (“ghost” detainee was not on any agency’s registry of prisoners; death was kept secret for two years prior to investigation); al-Jamadi (“ghost” detainee kept off prison records; body not released to ICRC until three months after his death); Naseer (lack of documentation of death, witnesses or even unit assigned to facility where death occurred stymied criminal investigation) , al-Haddii (two-month delay in criminal investigation into death because file was misplaced), Jabar (investigation into death failed to follow up on 17 outstanding leads, including interviews of relevant witnesses, crime scene examination and an autopsy; death was determined to be justifiable homicide), Unknown 3 (failure to do medical screening of detainee and lack of documentation prevented definitive determination of cause of death), Unknown 4 (cause of death could not be determined because of inadequate medical reporting and record keeping), Unknown 5 (determination of cause of death difficult to determine because of lack of medical monitoring of detainee), Taleb (cause of death undetermined due to lack of autopsy results until nine months after death when autopsy report was received), Kenami (cause of death could not be determined, in part, because of what the review characterized , as a criminal investigation “weak in thoroughness and timeliness” and faulted it for lack of autopsy; lack of interviews of pertinent witnesses, and a failure to collect records of medical treatment); al-Hussen (no medical records attached to investigation), H. Ahmed (failure to read medical intake records and to conduct witness interviews), Amir (investigation into death was reopened because of failure to obtain death certificate; few records regarding custody exist because of lack of clarity over whether detainee was in U.S. or Iraqi custody) ; al-Obodi (cause of death could not be determined because of failure to collect medical records including autopsy); al-Zubaidy (cause of death could not be determined because of almost no documentation, resulting in his death’s going unreported for almost a year). Criminal Investigation, Abdullah, supra note 468, at 1-2, 6-7 (reporting detainee Abdullah died of a perforated ulcer); Abbas, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation- Final (C)- 0050-04-CID259-80155 (Mar. 16, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Abbas], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2097_2155.pdf, at 1, 6-7, 22 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (reporting detainee Abbas, who had suffered a number of heart attacks, died of cardiac arrest); Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 1-2, 7-8 (reporting detainee al-Obodi “appeared extremely ill” and complained of feeling unwell prior to his death of an apparent heart attack); Basim, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental- 0014-03-CID919-63732 (July 21, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Basim] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2060_2096.pdf, at 1, 6 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (reporting detainee Basim was diagnosed with tuberculosis a day before his death); Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 1, 15 (reporting detainee Abed Najem died of heart attack arising from diabetes); Criminal Investigation, Mihdy, supra note 468, at 1, 11 (June 4, 2004) (reporting detainee Mihdy died of an apparent heart attack after telling medics that he had a prior heart condition); Criminal Investigation, al-Hussen, supra note 468, at 1, 26 (reporting detainee al-Hussen had been in medical hold when he died of myocarditis); Ahmed, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental- 0025-04-CID469-79635, (July 14, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Ahmed], at 1, 6 (reporting detainee Ahmed had been ill for “a couple” of days before his heart-attack death) and Dep’t of the Army, AR 15-6 Investigation of the Death Detainee [sic] # [redacted], p. 5 (Mar. 2, 2004) (detainee Ahmed suffered from diabetes, anemia, and kidney failure); Criminal Investigation, F. Mahmood, supra note 492, at 1, 12 (reporting detainee Mahmood died about 20 days after complaining of chest pains); al-Juwadi, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final/SSI- 0032-04-CID789-83985, (June 30, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Juwadi] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2222_2248.pdf, at 1, 3-4 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) [hereinafter Criminal Investigation, al-Juwadi] (reporting detainee al-Juwadi, who had a history of high blood pressure and diabetes, died of a heart attack); Altia, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final Supplemental- 0040-04-CID789-83990, (Aug. 14, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, Altia] available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/DOA_2578_2595.pdf, at 1, 5 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (reporting detainee Altia, who had a prior history of diabetes, died of a heart attack two days after complaining of chest pains); al-Razak, Dep’t of the Army, CID, CID Report of Investigation-Final/SSI- 0059-04-CID789-83991 (Oct. 15, 2004) [Criminal Investigation, al-Razak], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/021605/6022_6039.pdf, at 1, 3 (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (reporting detainee Abd al-Razak, who had had previous heart problems, died of a heart attack several days after returning to the prison from a hospital); Unknown 3, Dep’t of the Army, 15-6 Investigation [Into Death of an Unknown Detainee] (July 26, 2003) [Administrative Investigation, Unknown 3], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6233_6312.pdf, at 5, (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). (noting unidentified detainee (listed in DIC Table as Unknown 3) was diagnosed with diabetes, angina, and coronary artery disease 20 days before his death); Unknown 4, Dep’t of the Army, Informal Investigation of Death of Iraqi Detainee [redacted] (Aug. 24, 2003) [Administrative Investigation, Unknown 4], available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6233_6312.pdf, at 3-4, (accessed Feb. 3, 2006) [hereinafter Administrative Investigation, Unknown 4] (noting unidentified detainee (listed in DIC Table as Unknown 4) complained to medics of various ailments the day before his death).
523 522 521

Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 2-3, 35-36 (no medical records or autopsy found for al-Obodi); Criminal Investigation, Najem, supra note 391, at 1-2, 10, 13 (no records confirming that Abed Najem had diabetes); Criminal Investigation, Mihdy, supra note 468, at 1-2, 8-9, 11, 16 (no medical records for Mihdy attached); Criminal Investigation, al-Hussen, supra note 468, at 1-4, 18 (no medical records for al-Hussen attached because attempts to locate them were unsuccessful); Administrative Investigation, Unknown 4, supra note 522, at 3- (records of intake screening, sick call, and treatment could not be found for unnamed detainee (listed in DIC Table as Unknown 4)).

See, e.g., Criminal Investigation, al-Obodi, supra note 372, at 1, 43-44 (CID informed immediately after detainee death, but results of autopsy not requested for eight months due to apparent administrative neglect).
525 526

524

Criminal Investigation, al-Juwadi, supra note 522.
th

See TAGUBA REPORT, supra note 495, at 26-27 (stating the “320 MP Battalion … held a handful of ‘ghost detainees’ … that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver

A Human Rights First Report

124 — VIII. Endnotes

was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law”); see also Dep’t of Defense, Directive No. 2310.1, Dep’t of Defense Program for Enemy Prisoners of War and Other Detainees D.2.d (Aug. 18, 1994), available at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d2310_01.htm (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., General Comment No. 20, Replaces th General Comment 7 Concerning Prohibition of Torture and Cruel Treatment or Punishment (Art. 7), 44 Sess., at ¶ 11 (1992), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 150 (2004), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/ca12c3a4ea8d6c53c1256d500056e56f/$FILE/G0441302.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). The two are Manadel al-Jamadi and the “Salt Pit” detainee. See Eric Schmitt, 4 Navy Commandos are Charged in Abuse, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 4, 2004, at A6; Seth Hettena, Reports Detail Abu Ghraib Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Feb. 17, 2005; Dana Priest, CIA Avoids Scrutiny of Detainee Treatment, WASH. POST, Mar. 3, 2005, at A1.
528 527

Dep’t of the Army, AR 15-6 Investigation – Detainee Death at 2d BCT Detainment Facility (Sept. 7, 2004), available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6233_6312.pdf , at 52 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
529 530

Id. at 54. See DIC Table Unknown 4.

See supra notes 352-358 and accompanying text (case of Hasson) and supra notes 372-377 and accompanying text (case of alObodi). Dep’t of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, Army, ASSESSMENT OF DETAINEE MEDICAL OPERATIONS FOR OEF, GTMO, AND OIF, at 9 (1 – 4) (Apr. 13, 2005), available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/detmedopsrpt_13apr2005.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
532 533 534 535 531

Id. Id. at 83 (15–1). Id. at 36 (6–1).

As described above, supra note 3, these cases include 20 homicides that military investigators found to be unjustified or in which prosecutions were brought. They also include 14 cases in which investigators found the homicide to be justified. We include in our count homicides that investigators found justified because the classification of many of these deaths as justifiable is open to question. For example, in the death of al-Bawi, a criminal investigator only gave an administrative investigation finding of justified homicide a cursory review, without independent investigation, despite allegations by al-Bawi’s family and an Iraqi medical examiner that called findings into question. See supra notes 247-255 and accompanying text. Another four of the deaths investigators classified as justified are those of Salman, Sayar, Shalaan and Thawin, killed during the same prison riot by U.S. guards. The ICRC has criticized the military for use of excessive force in the riot that lead to those deaths. International Committee of the Red Cross, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC) ON THE TREATMENT BY THE COALITION FORCES OF PRISONERS OF WAR AND OTHER PROTECTED PERSONS BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS IN IRAQ DURING ARREST INTERNMENT AND INTERROGATION, Feb. 2004, at 20, ¶46, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/ICRC_Report.pdf (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). The ICRC’s criticism is supported by the military’s own findings. See TAGUBA REPORT, supra note 495, at 28-29 (finding that the riot was in protest of living conditions. Although use of deadly force was found to be authorized, contributing factors were “lack of comprehensive training of guards, poor or non-existent [standard operating procedures]… no rehearsals or ongoing training, the mix of less than lethal rounds with lethal rounds in weapons . . . [Rules of Engagement] not posted and not understood, overcrowding . . . poor communication between the command and Soldiers”) (referencing Dep’t of the Army, 15-6 Investigation on Riot and Shootings at Abu Ghurayb on (24 November 2003), Taguba Report Annex 8, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/taguba/ANNEX_008_15-6_INVESTIGATION_24_NOV_2003.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006)).
536

See DIC Table: Criminal charges were recommended against U.S. personnel for the deaths of Sayari, Habibullah, Dilawar, Unknown 2, Hatab, Wali, Radad, Jamadi, Mowhoush, Hassoun, F. Mohammed, Ismail, Jameel, Kadir, Kareem, Hanjil, Unknown 18, Unknown 19, T. Ahmed, and Unknown 22. See DIC Table: Most cases involve multiple accused; in relation to any particular detainee death, proceedings against some individuals may be complete while others remain pending. Criminal charges have been brought in 14 cases: Habibullah, Dilawar, Hatab, Wali, Mowhoush, Jamadi, Hassoun, Kadir, Unknown 18, Unknown 19, Ismail, T. Ahmed, Unknown 22 and F. Mohammed. In another case, that of Unknown 2, killed while being questioned in a village in Afghanistan by Army Special Forces in January 2003, criminal charges were recommended but Human Rights First has been unable to determine whether they were eventually brought. Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 5. Criminal proceedings have not proceeded to completion in at least ten cases. Charges were recommended but no individual was ever punished for the deaths of Jameel, Kareem, and Hanjil because, in each of these cases, commanders decided not to proceed with either criminal or administrative punishment. There has been no public explanation of the reduction in charges in the Kareem or Hanjil cases, and a Human Rights First Freedom of Information Act request for case documents remains pending. In two cases (Sayari and Radad) criminal charges were recommended but commanders declined to bring them and punished the suspects administratively instead. Trials for some of the individuals charged in the deaths of Habibullah, Dilawar, and Wali are pending as of this writing. Finally, while the CIA has reportedly referred the cases of Mowhoush and al-Jamadi to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution, no further action has yet been taken. The status of the cases of Unknown 2 and Unknown 22 remains uncertain. Human Rights First sought from the Department of Defense on January 20 and 26, 2006 an update on the cases of Unknown 2 and 22; as of February 10, we had received no response.

537

See DIC Table: The twelve cases resulting in punishment of any kind are: Sayari (administrative reprimand against one soldier for destruction of evidence), Habibullah and Dilawar (punishments include convictions and guilty pleas at court martial and administrative punishments), Hatab (criminal and administrative punishment), Radad (administrative punishment), al-Jamadi (administrative punishment), Mowhoush (criminal and administrative punishment), Hassoun (criminal and administrative punishment), Kadir (criminal punishment), Unknown 18 (criminal punishment), Unknown 19 (criminal punishment), and T. Ahmed (criminal punishment).
539

538

See DIC Table: In eight out of twelve cases, punishments were disproportionately lenient: Sayari (commanders reduced charge against one accused to written reprimand, no action taken against four others); Dilawar and Habibullah (Three soldiers were charged with

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 125

offenses relating only to Habibullah; all three were acquitted of all charges. Two were charged with offenses relating only to Dilawar; both pled guilty and were sentenced to 5 months and 75 days in prison, respectively, among other punishments. Seven were charged with offenses relating to both detainees; two soldiers had their charges dismissed before being court-martialed and were reprimanded, one was convicted of assault and reduced in rank, three pled guilty – one received 3 months in prison and a second received 2 months, among other punishments, while the third was fined and reprimanded with no prison time – and the trial of one remains pending.); Hatab (charges against one accused were reduced to assault and battery, dereliction of duty, and maltreatment, and upon conviction on the latter two counts the punishment was discharge; another received nonjudicial punishment (reduction in rank) as part of plea agreement for testimony; another was acquitted of charges at court-martial, and the charges against all other accused were dismissed); Radad (commander authorized administrative discharge of only soldier accused; criminal investigators later found probable cause for murder); Hassoun (two soldiers acquitted of manslaughter (though convicted of other charges and given prison sentences of six months and 45 days), three commanders who had instructed subordinates not to cooperate with investigators received reprimands, two other soldiers received non-judicial punishment); Kadir (single accused charged with unpremeditated murder instead convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to three years in prison); Mowhoush (accused charged with murder convicted of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty, fined $6,000, 60 days restricted duty, reprimanded). Of the eight deaths Human Rights First considers as involving torture, only four cases have resulted in any kind of punishment. See DIC Table: These are in the deaths of: Habibullah, Dilawar, Jamadi and Mowhoush. The most punishment in any of these cases to date is 5 months imprisonment and a bad conduct discharge for an Army Sergeant, for the death of Dilawar. Dilawar (Army Reservist Sentenced to 75 Days in Prison, ASSOC. PRESS, Aug. 31, 2005, available at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=state&id=3399051 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006, 2005); Alicia Caldwell, Cincinnati Soldier Found Guilty in Death of Detainee, ASSOC. PRESS, Aug. 18, 2005, available at http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050818/NEWS01/508180382 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006)); Habibullah, (Army Reservist Sentenced to 75 Days in Prison, ASSOC. PRESS, Aug. 31, 2005, available at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=state&id=3399051 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006, 2005); Alicia Caldwell, Cincinnati Soldier Found Guilty in Death of Detainee, ASSOC. PRESS, Aug. 18, 2005, available at http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050818/NEWS01/508180382 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Hatab (David Hasemyer, Marine Says He Was Ordered to Grab Iraqi Prisoner's Neck, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 4, 2004, at B2; Tony Perry, Marine Convicted of Assault, L.A. TIMES, Sept. 3, 2004, at B1); Mowhoush (Nicholas Riccardi, Mild Penalties in Military Abuse Cases, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 25, 2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abuse25jan25,1,6318208.story (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Jon Sarche, Jury Orders Reprimand, No Jail for Soldier, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 24, 2006, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012400177.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Nicholas Riccardi, Interrogator Convicted in Iraqi's Death, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 22, 2006, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-interrogate22jan22,1,81943.story (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006, excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006)). Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006, excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
543 544 542 541 540

Id.
th

Memorandum from General Ricardo Sanchez to Combined Joint Task Force Seven and the Commander, 205 Intelligence Brigade (Sept. 10, 2003), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06124-etn-sep-10-sanchez-memo.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
545

Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006, excerpts available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

546

Josh White, U.S. Army Officer Convicted in Death Of Iraqi Detainee, WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2006, at A2; Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, In Their Own Words, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-011906d.as (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
547

Jon Sarche, Army Officer Found Guilty In Iraqi’s Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 22, 2006, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950946/ (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
548 549 550 551

Tim Golden, Case Dropped Against U.S. Officer in Beating Deaths of Afghan Inmates, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2006, at A13. Administrative Investigation, Radad, supra note 263, at 23. Administrative Investigation, Radad, supra note 263, at 22.

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2; Memorandum from Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno for Commander, 502d Personnel Service Battalion, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, available at Operative in Abuse Case Can Blame Orders, ASSOC. PRESS, Feb. 3, 2006, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302197.html, (accessed Feb. 6, 2006). Id. Of the eight deaths Human Rights First considers as involving torture, only four cases have resulted in any kind of punishment. These are for the deaths of: Habibullah, Dilawar, Jamadi and Mowhoush. These are the deaths by homicide of: Sayari, Hatab, Radad, Hassoun, Kadir, Unknown 18, Unknown 19, T. Ahmed. This includes both criminal and administrative charges.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6768_7065.pdf, at 53 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).accessed Feb. 3, 2006.
552

553 554

555 556 557

Death of Habibullah (Sgt. Greatorex, Sgt. Broady, Staff Sgt. Doyle charged, supra note 208); death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, Sgt. Morden charged, supra note 208); deaths of both Habibullah and Dilawar (Sgt. Salcedo, Sgt. Boland, Spc. Cammack, Pfc. Brand, Capt. Beiring, Sgt. Driver, Spc. Walls charged, supra note 208); death of Wali (Passaro charged, supra text accompanying note 187); death of Jamadi (Lt. Ledford, 9 unnamed other Navy Personnel charged, supra text accompanying note 137); death of Mowhoush (Chief Warrant Officer

A Human Rights First Report

126 — VIII. Endnotes

Welshofer charged, supra text accompanying note 60, Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams charged, supra text accompanying note 62, Sgt. 1st Class Sommer charged, supra text accompanying note 63, Spc. Loper charged, supra text accompanying note 62, Maj. Voss charged, supra text accompanying note 65). Death of Sayari (Captain, name unknown, charged, supra text accompanying note 192); death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, Sgt. Pittman charged, supra text accompanying note 169, Lance Cpl. Roy, Maj. Vickers, charged, see DIC Table, Lance Cpl. Hernandez charged, supra text accompanying note 175, Sgt. Rodriguez-Martinez, Lance Cpl. Mikholap, Lance Cpl. Rodney charged, see DIC Table); death of Radad (Spc. Martino-Poole charged, supra text accompanying note 270); death of Hassoun (Lt. Saville charged, supra text accompanying note 305, Staff Sgt. Perkins charged, supra text accompanying note 316, Lt. Col. Sassaman, Maj. Gwinner, Capt. Cunningham charged, see DIC Table, Sgt. Martinez, Sgt. Bowman charged, supra text accompanying note 317); death of Ismail (Staff Sgt. Werst charged, see st DIC Table); death of Kadir (Pfc. Richmond charged, see DIC Table); deaths of Kareem and Hanjil (1 Lt. Pantano charged, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 18 (Sgt. Michael Williams charged, infra note 609, 2nd Lt. Anderson charged, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 19 (Sgt. Michael Williams charged, infra note 609, Spc. May charged, see DIC Table); death of T. Ahmed (Sgt. 1st Class Diaz charged, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 22 (Sergeant, name unknown, charged, see DIC Table).
559 558

Death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, Sgt. Morden, supra note 209); deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Sgt. Salcedo, Sgt. Boland, Spc. Cammack, Pfc. Brand, Capt. Beiring, Spc. Walls, supra, note 209); death of al-Jamadi (9 unnamed Navy personnel other than Lt. Ledford supra, text accompanying note 138); death of Mowhoush (Chief Warrant Officer Welshofer, supra text accompanying note 61, Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, supra text accompanying note 62, Maj. Voss, supra text accompanying note 65).

560

Death of Sayari (Captain, name unknown, supra text accompanying note 296); death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, supra text accompanying note 173, Lance Cpl. Roy, see DIC Table); death of Radad (Spc. Martino-Poole, supra text accompanying note 269); death of Hassoun (Lt. Saville, Staff Sgt. Perkins, supra text accompanying note 316, Lt. Col. Sassaman, Maj. Gwinner, Capt. Cunningham, infra text accompanying note 589, Sgt. Martinez, Sgt. Bowman, supra text accompanying note 317); death of Kadir (Pfc. Richmond, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 18 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 606); death of Unknown 19 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 609, Spc. May, see DIC Table); death of T. Ahmed (Diaz, see DIC Table). Death of Mowhoush (Maj. Voss, supra text accompanying note 65). Death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, supra text accompanying note 169).

561 562 563

Death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, supra note 209, Sgt. Morden, supra note 209); deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Spc. Cammack, supra note 209, Spc. Walls, supra note 209).

Death of Hassoun (Lt. Saville, supra text accompanying note 316, Staff Sgt. Perkins, supra text accompanying note 316); death of Kadir (Pfc. Richmond, see DIC Table), deaths of Unknown 18 and Unknown 19 (Spc. Williams, infra note 609, Sgt. May, see DIC Table), st T. Ahmed (Sgt. 1 Class Diaz, see DIC Table). Death of Dilawar (Sgt. Morden, see DIC Table); deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Sgt. Salcedo, see DIC Table, Spc. Cammack, see DIC Table, Pfc. Brand, see DIC Table, Spc. Walls, see DIC Table); death of Mowhoush (Welshofer, supra text accompanying notes 10-22, 55-56, 542-547).
566 567 568 569 565

564

Death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, see DIC Table). Death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, supra note 209). Deaths of Unknowns 18 and 19 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 609).

Deaths of Dilawar and Habibullah (Capt. Beiring, supra note 209, Sgt. Boland, supra note 210); death of Mowhoush (Maj. Voss, infra text accompanying note 594).

570

Death of Sayari (Captain, name unknown, supra note 538); death of Hassoun (Lt. Col. Sassaman, infra, text accompanying note 589, Maj. Gwinner, infra text accompanying note 589, Capt. Cunningham, supra text accompanying note 318).

This number includes both criminal and administrative charges. Deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Capt. Beiring, supra text accompanying notes 211 and 548); death of al-Jamadi (Lt. Ledford, supra text accompanying note 80, one other SEAL Lieutenant, see DIC Table); death of Mowhoush (Chief Warrant Officer Welshofer, supra text accompanying note 60, Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams, supra text accompanying note 62, Maj. Voss,* supra text accompanying note 65). *Denotes administrative charge only. This number includes both criminal and administrative charges. Death of Sayari (Captain, name unknown,* supra text accompanying note 293); death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, supra text accompanying note 169, Maj. Vickers, see DIC Table); death of Hassoun (Lt. Saville, supra text accompanying note 305, Lt. Col. Sassaman,* infra text accompanying note 589, Maj. Gwinner,* infra text accompanying note st 589, Capt. Cunningham,* infra text accompanying note 589); deaths of Kareem and Hanjil (1 Lt. Pantano, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 18 (2nd Lt. Anderson, see DIC Table). *Denotes administrative charge only. This number includes both criminal and administrative punishments. Deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Capt. Beiring,* see DIC Table); death of al-Jamadi (SEAL Lieutenant other than Lt. Ledford,* see DIC Table); death of Mowhoush (Chief Warrant Officer Welshofer, supra text accompanying note 60, Chief Warrant Officer Jefferson Williams,* supra text accompanying note 62, Voss,* supra text accompanying note 65). *Denotes administrative punishment only.
574 573 572

571

This number includes both criminal and administrative punishments. Death of Sayari (Captain, name unknown,* supra text accompanying note 295); death of Hatab (Maj. Paulus, supra text accompanying note 173); death of Hassoun (Lt. Saville, supra text accompanying note 316, Lt. Col. Sassaman,* infra text accompanying note 589, Maj. Gwinner,* infra text accompanying note 589, Capt. Cunningham,* infra text accompanying note 589). *Denotes administrative punishment only

This number includes both criminal and administrative charges. Death of Habibullah (Sgt. Greatorex, supra note 208, Sgt. Broady, supra note 208, Staff Sgt. Doyle, supra note 208); death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, supra note 208, Sgt. Morden, supra note 208); deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Sgt. Salcedo, supra note 208, Sgt. Boland, supra note 208, Spc. Cammack, supra note 208, Pfc. Brand, supra note 208, Sgt. Driver, supra note 208, Spc. Walls, supra note 208); death of al-Jamadi (eight unnamed enlisted Navy personnel, supra text accompanying notes 138-140); death of Mowhoush (Sgt. 1st Class Sommer, supra note 62, Spc. Loper, supra note 62).

575

A Human Rights First Report

Command’s Responsibility — 127

576

This number includes both criminal and administrative charges. Death of Hatab (Sgt. Pittman, supra text accompanying note 169, Lance Cpl. Roy, supra text accompanying note 176, Lance Cpl. Hernandez, supra text accompanying note 175, Sgt. Rodriguez-Martinez, see DIC Table, Lance Cpl. Mikholap, see DIC Table, Lance Cpl. Rodney, see DIC Table); death of Radad (Spc. Martino-Poole, supra text accompanying note 270); death of Hassoun (Staff Sgt. Perkins, supra text accompanying note 316, Sgt. Martinez, supra text accompanying note 317, Sgt. Bowman, supra text accompanying note 317); death of Ismail (Staff Sgt. Werst, see DIC Table); death of Kadir (Pfc. Richmond, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 18 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 609); death of Unknown 19 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 609, Spc. May, see DIC Table); death of T. Ahmed (Sgt. 1st Class Diaz, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 22 (Sergeant, name unknown, see DIC Table). This number includes both criminal and administrative punishments. Death of Dilawar (Sgt. Claus, supra note 209, Sgt. Morden, supra note 209); deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar (Sgt. Salcedo, supra note 209, Sgt. Boland,* supra note 209, Spc. Cammack, supra note 209, Pfc. Brand, supra note 209, Spc. Walls, supra note 209); death of al-Jamadi (eight unnamed enlisted Navy personnel,* supra text accompanying notes 138-140). *Denotes administrative punishment only

577

578

This number includes both criminal and administrative punishments. Death of Hatab (Lance Cpl. Roy,* supra text accompanying note 176); death of Radad (SPC. Martino-Poole, supra text accompanying note 551); death of Hassoun (Staff Sgt. Perkins, supra text accompanying note 316, Sgt. Martinez,* supra text accompanying note 317, Sgt. Bowman,* supra text accompanying note 317); death of Kadir (Pfc. Richmond, see DIC Table); death of Unknown 18 (Sgt. Michael Williams, infra note 609), death of Unknown 19 (Sgt. Michael st Williams, infra note 609, Spc. May, see DIC Table); death of T. Ahmed (Sgt. 1 Class Diaz, see DIC Table). *Denotes administrative punishment only Death of Wali (Passaro, supra text accompanying note 187). Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 11. Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1-10.

579 580 581 582 583 584

Criminal Investigation, Sayari, supra note 273, at 1; Army: Soldiers Shouldn't be Charged, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 24, 2005, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863659/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
585

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Cover-up of Iraq Bridge Incident Admitted, ASSOC. PRESS, July 30, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5560805/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
586

Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
587

Investigating Officer's Report of Charges Under Article 32, Aug. 19, 2004, available at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/063005/11950_12130PartB.pdf, at 99-100 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
588

Cover-up of Iraq Bridge Incident Admitted, ASSOC. PRESS, July 30, 2004, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5560805/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

589

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Suzanne Goldenberg, 45 Days Jail for U.S. Officer Who Had Cousins Thrown Into Tigris, GUARDIAN, Mar. 16, 2005, at Home Pages 2. Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Several Issues Cloud Army’s Case Against GIs in Drowning, July 29, 2004, at 4A; Dick Foster, Fort Carson Soldiers May Use Drug Defense in Courts-Martial, Rocky Mountain News, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, at 5A; Charges Dropped Against U.S. Soldier in Iraqi Man's Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Sept. 7, 2004, available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131717,00.html (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
592 593 591 590

Criminal Investigators Outline 27 Homicides, supra note 64, at 5; Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298.

Criminal Investigation, Radad, supra note 260, at 2 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Memorandum from Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno for Commander, 502d Personnel Service Battalion, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, available at In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/041905/6768_7065.pdf, at 53 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
594 595

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 art. 86 (not ratified by United States), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (“knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time”); Dep’t of the Army, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, Chapter 8, § 2, art. 501 (“if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means”); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1993), art. 7(3), available at http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/statute.htm (accessed Feb. 8, 2006) (“knew or had reason to know”); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), art. 6(3) (“knew or had reason to know”). Gidget Fuentes, Major Convicted, Avoids Jail Time in Abuse Trial, MARINE CORPS TIMES, Nov. 22, 2004, at 11; Alex Roth, Marine Guilty in Death of Iraqi, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 11, 2004, at B1. Lawyers: Army Backed Interrogation Methods, ASSOC. PRESS, Apr. 1, 2005, available at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/31/205753.shtml (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); Arthur Kane and Miles Moffeit, U.S. General Backed Lightest Penalty in Interrogation Death, DENVER POST, May 10, 2005, at A6.
598 597 596

Filkins, Warrior King, supra note 298; Information Paper on Samarra Bridge Incident, July 15, 2004, available at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/051805/8055_8181.pdf, at 47 (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).

A Human Rights First Report

128 — VIII. Endnotes

599

Elise Ackerman, Interrogators Linked to Prior Prison Abuse; Afghanistan-Iraq Pattern Cited; Army’s Covering Up, Critics Say, DETROIT FREE PRESS, Aug. 23, 2004. Elise Ackerman, Only 2 Low-Ranking Reservists Face Punishment in Detainees’ Deaths, KNIGHT RIDDER, Mar. 8, 2005, available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0308-02.htm (accessed Feb. 9, 2006); Several With Ties to Prison Abuse Linked to Fort, ARIZ. DAILY STAR, July 31, 2005 available at http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/86554.php (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
601 602 603 600

Human Rights First Telephone Conversation with Fort Huachuca representative (Feb. 9, 2006) (notes on file with Human Rights First). See Mowhoush case study, supra pp. 6-11 and Jameel case study, supra pp. 12-13.
th

Memorandum from General Ricardo Sanchez to Combined Joint Task Force Seven and the Commander, 205 Intelligence Brigade (Sept. 10, 2003), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06124-etn-sep-10-sanchez-memo.pdf (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). See also Memorandum from General Ricardo Sanchez to the Commander, U.S. Central Command (Sept. 14, 2003), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/sanc-%20memo-091403.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Memorandum from General Ricardo th Sanchez to Combined Joint Task Force Seven and the Commander, 205 Intelligence Brigade (Oct. 12, 2003), available at http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/october%20sanchez%20memo.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2006).
604

See Cnn.com Specials, Forces: U.S & Coalition/Commanders, Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/commanders/us.command/index.html (accessed Feb. 8, 2006). Human Rights First notes from observation of Welshofer court martial, Welshofer In His Own Words, Jan. 20, 2006 (on file with Human Rights First), excerpts available http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012006d.asp (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
606 607 605

Eric Schmitt, Career of General in Charge During Abu Ghraib May End, N.Y. Times, Jan. 5, 2006, at A3.

Human Rights Watch, LEADERSHIP FAILURE: FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS OF TORTURE OF IRAQI DETAINEES BY THE U.S. ARMY’S 82ND AIRBORNE DIVISION (Sept. 2005), available at http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2006).
608

Dep’t of Defense, News Release, 82nd Airborne Division Commanding General's Briefing from Iraq (Mar. 10, 2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040310-1281.html (accessed Feb. 13, 2006). Sergeant Michael Williams was court-martialed for his involvement in the deaths of two detainees, shot during house searches, and received a life sentence (later reduced to 25 years). Williams agreed to testify against an officer in related proceedings as part of the plea deal; he later admitted he had falsely implicated the officer in order to get the lesser sentence. Gina Cavallaro, Witnesses Defend Accused Lieutenant, ARMY TIMES, Nov. 17, 2005, available at http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1307022.php (accessed Feb. 7, 2006); Michael Sangiacomo, Soldier Will Fight New Murder Charges, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, Oct. 18, 2005; John Milburn, Fort Riley Officer Faces Hearing on Murder Charges, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 16, 2005, available at http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-2929251304495.php (accessed Feb. 3, 2006); John Milburn, Hearing for Accused Fort Riley Officer Concludes with Drama, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 17, 2005, available at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20051117-2252-fortriley-officercharged.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006). Rick Rogers, Main Charge is Reduced in Court-Martial, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov, 6, 2004, at NC-1; Court Martial Begins in Iraq Prison Death, ASSOC. PRESS, Nov. 2, 2004, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6394480/ (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
611 612 610 609

Tim Golden, Case Dropped Against U.S. Officer in Beating Deaths of Afghan Inmates, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 8, 2006, at A13.

Luke Harding, I Will Always Hate You People, THE GUARDIAN, May 24, 2004, at Home Pages 1; Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378.

Salaheddin, Family Welcomes Probe, supra note 378; Charles J. Hanley, Experts Urge Release of Iraq Scientists, ASSOC. PRESS, July 17, 2005, available at http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-07172005-515623.html (accessed Feb. 3, 2006).
614 615 616 617 618

613

Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 56-64. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 58-61. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 58-61.

, Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 59.

John Lumpkin, 9 Prisoner Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan Probed as Homicides, ASSOC. PRESS, May 22, 2004, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-23-death-probe_x.htm (accessed Feb. 8, 2006).
619 620 621 622 623

Autopsy, F. Mohammed, supra note 104, at 96. Autopsy, F. Mohammed, supra note 104, at 96. Autopsy, F. Mohammed, supra note 104, at 99-100. Autopsy, Dababa, supra note 341, at 105. Josh White, 3 More Navy SEALs Face Abuse Charges, WASH. POST, Sept. 25, 2004, at A16.

A Human Rights First Report