Analysis of Abu Ghraib Detainee statements - Verdict:Systemic cover-up

Prisoners’ affidavits taken in Abu Ghraib earlier this year - published in WAPO today in .pdf format, obtainable here

A couple of things stand out.

1) Reading the statements of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas it is clear that his questioning re the abuse was LIMITED to incidents occurring at Abu Ghraib. As he indicates in his statement, the place where he was previously held was also ’very bad’ but it appears that he was not permitted to discuss this

2) The ’supplementary’ questions asked of the affidavit swearing prisoners were all pitched to secure eye witness testimony about the ’naked pyramid’ pictures scenario.

It would appear that a conclusion that ’...the abuse was limited to a few bad apples in Abu Ghraib’ could be reached quite comfortably IF prisoners were not permitted to speak of abuse in other holding centers and IF questioning was geared not towards any real enquiry about abuse in general but based around specific incidents committed by specific individuals.

Given the existence of the photographs, it may well be the case that the ’rigorous inquiry’ into abuse at Abu Ghraib precluded any examination of abuses elsewhere and confined itself to examining the circumstances giving rise to the photographs only.

A REAL inquiry would have asked ALL the prisoners their experiences of abuse at ANY holding center, but now that hundreds of prisoners are being released with all speed, some of them clutching a handful of US dollars and a note telling them they were NOT abused, it will be so much more difficult to conduct a meaningful inquiry.

What has emerged is the old ‘Railroad some dumb fallguys’ routine

a) Problem becomes public
b) Set up an inquiry, to provide the illusion of ‘something being done’
c) Limit the terms of reference of the inquirers
d) If possible, use people associated with some of the perpetrators e.g. Titan translators, to ‘assist’ the inquirers so that a careful watch can be kept on developments
e) Pre-select the ‘culprits’ and tailor questioning to suit
f) Tie-in the ‘evidence’ with witness statements, railroad the dummies
g) Voila! Problem solved.

The individual affidavits bear careful reading, for the brutal and unrelenting horror they describe, and other sick vignettes such as the solicitous visit made by interrogator ‘Steve’ (Stefanowicz) to the prison hospital bed of an injured detainee where ‘Steve’ told him he was going to torture him some more when the detainee’s injuries were sufficiently recovered for him to return to the cell block.

WAPO is to be commended for releasing the new information - as always, the devil is in the detail.

By Helpful Spook