Top commanders in Iraq allowed dogs to be used

By John Diamond

U.S. military commanders in Iraq authorized the use of dogs for interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison five months after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld barred the practice for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to classified military documents.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq, allowed dogs to be present during interrogations beginning Sept. 14, 2003. In an update of his order a month later, Sanchez allowed dogs to be used at the discretion of interrogators without his specific approval, according to classified documents obtained by USA TODAY. It was in the next two months that abuses at Abu Ghraib were documented, including use of dogs to terrify naked prisoners.

In April 2003, Rumsfeld had issued an order banning the use of dogs during interrogations at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a technique he had allowed there previously. But Rumsfeld’s order applied only to Guantanamo, so commanders in Iraq were not told about the restriction.

As commander in a war zone, Sanchez had the authority to establish interrogation rules in Iraq without consulting Rumsfeld. Pentagon officials say they did not know that rules for Abu Ghraib differed from Rumsfeld’s order for Guantanamo until photographs were leaked to the news media that showed naked Iraqi prisoners cowering before snarling dogs.

"Interrogation policy for Iraq and Gitmo were developed on separate tracks," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says. Policies for Guantanamo, or "Gitmo" as it is called in the military, were developed by the U.S. Southern Command and reviewed by Rumsfeld as they involved suspected terrorists not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they were not soldiers fighting for a specific country. Interrogation rules for Iraq were developed by field commanders without Rumsfeld’s involvement, Whitman said.

Use of dogs in Iraq after Rumsfeld banned the practice at Guantanamo shows an inconsistency in policies governing behavior by enlisted guards at Abu Ghraib in October and November 2003.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that Rumsfeld has ordered the creation of an Office of Detainee Affairs to oversee management of prisoners. Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for policy, says handling of matters related to prisoners has been "somewhat disparate and spread out" among various military commands.

Sanchez has testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he never approved a request for permission to use dogs in an interrogation. But his rule said his permission was not required. In an Oct. 12, 2003, memo to prison commanders and military intelligence officials, Sanchez wrote, "Should military working dogs be present during interrogations, they will be muzzled and under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety." The memo contains no requirement that Sanchez or any senior officer be consulted in advance. There was no requirement that dogs be muzzled outside of interrogation rooms.

Despite the language of Sanchez’s Oct. 12 memo, Whitman said dogs were not allowed in interrogation rooms in Iraq after that date.

Lt. Col. Kevin Gainer, a spokesman for Sanchez, said the general, who has been reassigned to Europe, was not available for comment. Gainer said, "Soldiers are not allowed to make comments to the media" about abuse of prisoners.

Army Col. Thomas Pappas, who headed the military intelligence brigade running interrogations at Abu Ghraib, told an Army investigator early this year that interrogators and translators told him, " ’It’s not very intimidating if they’re muzzled.’ And my response to that was, ’Well, then don’t use them. Find another way.’ "

Guards and interrogators at Abu Ghraib unmuzzled dogs for use outside interrogation rooms, such as during shakedowns and cell searches, according to testimony in the Army’s investigation of abuse. Investigation documents indicate there was widespread fear of guard dogs among inmates. The investigation found at least two instances of dogs biting prisoners, one resulting in serious injury.

The fact that top U.S. commanders in Iraq explicitly authorized use of dogs in interrogations undercuts claims by the Pentagon and field commanders that the mistreatment was solely the work of guards who abused their authority. On the other hand, the testimony indicates that some episodes involving dogs violated safeguards put in place by commanders in Iraq to protect inmates from being bitten and to ensure that dogs were always under control of their handlers.

If Abu Ghraib officials thought they were evading laws against torture by using dogs outside of formal interrogation rooms, they were mistaken, said Dinah Pokempner, an attorney with Human Rights Watch, an international organization. "Torture can happen anywhere," she said.

International laws on torture and the treatment of prisoners of war do not discuss use of dogs. In general, prisoners are protected from being threatened with death or bodily harm to extract information. Before the Abu Ghraib scandal, the U.S. government had condemned the use of dogs on prisoners in other countries. The State Department’s 2003 report on human rights violations condemned Libya for dog attacks on prisoners.

Contributing: Donna Leinwand and Tom Squitieri

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-19-iraq-dogs_x.htm