home

Report: Iraqis Detained Without Justification

by TChris

It's no secret that the U.S. has been imprisoning people in Iraq without adequate cause to justify the detentions. The sudden drive to release prisoners after the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib demonstrates that many detainees should never have been taken into custody, or should have been released promptly.

Maj. Gen. John Ryder recognized that problem last fall, when he completed a report concluding that hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were being held in Abu Ghraib "despite a lack of evidence that they posed a security threat to American forces."

The unpublished report ... reflects what other senior Army officers have described as a deep concern among some American officers and officials in Iraq over the refusal of top American commanders in Baghdad to authorize the release of so-called security prisoners.

General Ryder, the Army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for several months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" toward the American occupying forces. The Nov. 5 report said the process for deciding which arrested Iraqis posed security risks justifying imprisonment, and for deciding when to release them, violated the Pentagon's own policies. It also said the conditions in which they were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.

Ryder gave his report to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, but Sanchez apparently deferred to the desire of other officers to ignore international law by keeping the prisoners locked up.

In interviews, senior Army officers have described senior officers on General Sanchez's staff as having been the major obstacle to releasing prisoners from Abu Ghraib. The officers have said in particular that Brig. Gen. Barbara Fast, the top Army intelligence officer in Iraq, often ruled last fall against the release of prisoners, even against the recommendation of a military police commander and military intelligence officers at the prison.

Fast was in charge of a three-member board responsible for reviewing detentions and deciding whether to release detainees. Although the board clearly wasn't doing its job, top officials in the military are defending it in terms that are inconsistent with the reality reflected in Ryder's report.

In Baghdad this week, General Kimmitt defended the procedures used by American commanders there as being even more rigorous than those required by international law. "There is a review board that is set up that is done far more frequently than required by the Geneva Conventions where a board takes a look at that person's case," he said. "And after a period of time, when those persons are deemed to no longer be a threat to the security of the nation, then they are released."

Nice try, but neither the passage of time nor diminished security threats explain the prolonged detention of people who were never a threat.

In one incident described in detail by the senior Army officer, an aggressive roundup in September brought 57 Iraqis into custody. But a review by military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib determined that only two had intelligence value and that the rest should be freed. An American general at the headquarters in Baghdad overruled that decision, and dictated that all 57 Iraqis be kept in custody.

The sudden decision to release prisoners from Abu Ghraib wasn't motivated by a change in their status as security threats. It resulted from bad publicity surrounding Abu Ghraib that forced the release of prisoners who could have been freed months earlier. This is another example of the administration's mismanagement of the occupation of Iraq and its lack of concern for the fundamental rights of Iraqis.

< A New Political Encyclopedia | Running For Judge By Running Away From the Bill of Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft