home

Dogs at Abu Ghraib

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:41:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The military's use of dogs to "break down" detainees at Abu Ghraib prior to interrogations will be explored today in an Article 32 hearing regarding charges brought against the dog handlers.

Sgts. Santos A. Cardona and Michael J. Smith are charged with dereliction of duty and maltreatment of detainees. Both were attached to the 320th Military Police Battalion, one of the units guarding the now notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in December 2003 and January 2004.

According to an investigation led by Maj. General George Fay, Cardona and Smith had a running contest in which they used their dogs to try to frighten detainees into wetting themselves.

The handlers say they were doing what they were told to do.

Smith said he knew that dogs were supposed to be muzzled during interrogations, but "from what I was told, we weren't doing interrogations. Having the dogs bark at detainees was psychologically breaking them down for their interrogation purposes."

Cardona, who supervised the two-man dog team, told investigators he had reservations about using dogs in the "hard site," where detainees were interrogated. "The people who are in charge try to tell you how to do your job, even though they're not trained in dog handling," he said. "I told them nothing good is going to come out of dogs being in a hard site."

Predictably, there has been no comparable prosecution of the man in charge.

Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, which conducted interrogations at the prison, was reprimanded and fined in May.

< NARAL Makes FOIA Request for Bush White House Memos on Roberts | Judiciary Dems Seek 12-Hour Gap Investigation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Dogs at Abu Ghraib | 45 comments (45 topical)
    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Predictably, there has been no comparable prosecution of the man in charge.
    Speaking of the man in charge... oh, wait, "the buck stops here" stopped on September 11th.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Enough of Abu Ghraib already! Haven't you guys beaten this to death? Yes, we know they used dogs on those poor innocent guys!

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Enough? That's what the prisoners were saying. I say keep it coming! Let's never drop the ball on this prison abuse scandal. These horrors were done in all our names.

    This is mild compared to the many nightmare scenarios the liars and traitors in the whitehouse and pentagon came up with. And let's not forget the sordid ways of sneaking around the conventions and laws against torture and abuse.

    I want to see the ones at the top hauled off in chains for this. Making the troops pay for doing the dirty work is reprehensible.

    Support our troops! Arrest the ringleaders!

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    cheetah.... Too bad you guys can't focus all this energy on our REAL enemies!

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    BB,

    That's precisely what I'm doing!!!

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    these are the real enemies. remember, for the average poster here, worldwide bombings are just a blip on the radar screen, useful only to the extent that they can be blamed on Bush. Abu Ghraib-now that's something they can get excised about.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    Yeah I know Cheetah... we are the bad guys! All these people blowing themselves (& many others) up are just misunderstood... and besides.. it's all our fault anyway... huh? If we would just leave them alone & let them hold the world for ramsom.. all would be cool...huh? [BB, you have been limited to four comments a day and you are over limit. Feel free to come back tomorrow.]

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    No one I know is saying we should "leave them alone", or "let them hold the world for ransom", or any of your other stupid RNC talking point ideas, so why don't you just leave the lies at home when you post here.

    You don't impress anyone by only repeating what you hear from Hannity, Mr. Bill, Dr."video-diagnosis" Frist, or rep. bug-zapper. You just make yourselves look like parrots.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Cheetah.. So let me hear your plan... Lies...? these aren't lies...this is the left's agenda

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Posted by BB: "Too bad you guys can't focus all this energy on our REAL enemies!" Yeah, that's what cheetah was doing. Terrorists of the sort we are seeing have been with the human race now for a VERY long time. But you 'Kill Them All' sorts barely veil your racism and your greed with All Your Lies. Forceably installing pipelines and airbases does NOT make us safer. It's why we are unsafe to begin with. $300 BILLION spent on US domestic security would go a long way to stopping the problem. But it wouldn't make Halliburton Dick and his fixers at Blackwater much money.>b>

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    sorry TL..I'll quit now

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#12)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    I have a question: What are dogs supposed to be used for in war?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    My plan? That would be to stop messing in countries that don't belong to us.

    As PaulinLA said, installing military bases and pipelines in these countries is the heart of the problem, and wastes billions of dollars that should go for our own security.

    The agenda to get everyone out of our way, when we see something we want to get our hands on, is racist on it's face.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Al, good question. I thought the military was made up of human beings. Don't they trust that the troops can do their jobs, without the support of domesticated animals?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Several major studies out that conclude that suicide bombing mainly is motivated by a desire for foreign troops to leave an occupied country. =here

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    The use of dogs in wartime goes from using beagles and small,quick dogs for conveying messages to guard duty. Abu Ghraib wasn't the first time dogs have been used as intimidation against prisoners, and unfortunately it won't be the last. BB and ED, since the "left" has run Abu Ghraib into the ground and made it a non-issue I don't suppose you are too upset then with the 87 other pictures and 4 videos that have been taken as evidence being shown to the people of the U.S. as to what went on at that place? You don't mind if the rumors turn out to be true, and since Rummy himself said there were truly barbaric images on these peices of media that made him sick, of sodomizing children? I'm sure guys like you two wouldn't mind at all if the citizens of this country found out what nasty kicks a few "bad apples" were getting there at that prison? Since they were all bad guys they deserve everything they got, right? And you know what? Places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have been used as PR tools by the same folks blowing themselves up in London and Baghdad(but I'm sure only the lily white Londinians matter to you guys. What's one less brown skinned Iraqi to you?). Idjits that totally ignore the

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    "Idjits like you guys tend to forget things like this" is how I meant to finish the post earlier. Got too watch out when I get worked up. My fingers start a flyin' all over the place.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    to not too.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Abu Ghraib was a legitimate story-you folks conflated it into equivalency with the Reich(remember, this is the same media that won't show pictures of folks diving out of the WTC for fear it will inflame us/but it won't exercise such restraint for an anti-US spin). As for your supposition about the motivations of the bombers, what was their motivation for years of killing(why it would motivate one to kill fellow muslims and children-perhaps a genius of the left such as yourself could answer) prior to the prison. as to whether I care if some subhuman monster blows himself up, the answer is no-why would I waste any compassion on such things. I'll leave it to you to cry over their root causes.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#20)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed, We cry over the root causes when OUR people die as a result. Why do you hate americans?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    no, you offer excuses and rationalizations for psychopaths. All sorts of people have grievances yet manage to avoid the wholesale slaughter of people-what is so special about the jihadists that lead you to provide those excuses. would you have provided rationalizations for the Holocaust as well?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#22)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed, there are no doubt people who applaud when "jihadists" blow themselves to pieces along with varying numbers of other people. There are also people who applaud when Americans invade a country like Iraq twice in 14 years, killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants with bombs, bullets or sanctions for no acceptable reason. The only difference between the two is numbers, and it's not likely the "jihadists" have much chance to catch up.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed,
    All sorts of people have grievances yet manage to avoid the wholesale slaughter of people-
    Perhaps you should write that in a letter, and send it to the war criminals in washington. They need to hear that message, especially from one of their own.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#24)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed is apparently a proponent of the "We'll prove we're better than you by behaving as badly as you" school of foreign policy.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Who knew Mid-Easterners were so afraid of dogs? Sheesh if that's all it takes to make them wet themselves then we need more dogs on the streets of Fallujah. I know Abu Ghraib is bad but I can't imagine it is any worse than any other Arab prison. As well I would have to say that Gitmo is the best prison in Cuba for that matter. When they start feeding them to the dogs then I'll be pissed.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#26)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed, Yes, I do consider the root causes of nazism important. By understanding the past, we can avoid a repeat. Personally, I would be against a repeat of Versailles, and reparations should be avoided.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#27)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    When they start feeding them to the dogs then I'll be pissed.
    Why?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Jimcee, You are a troll.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#29)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Ed is trying to divert attention from the issue by spitting accusations against the "left" of inflating the Abu Ghraib story. Rubbish. The facts are pretty simple: People have been subjected to criminal, inhuman treatment there by American soldiers, who were obeying orders. I don't care what your politics are, if you have the slightest shred of decency, what happened at Abu Ghraib should be indefensible. Period. And jimcee, well, you're real cocky because you're sitting in your comfortable little house, really, really far from Fallujah. I wouldn't expect you to understand that you should not torture people as a matter of principle. But I think you should be able to understand this: What do you think those people who wet themselves in Abu Ghraib are going to do to Americans if they get out? What do you think their brothers and cousins and sons are going to do to Americans, bearing in mind that they are free to roam the streets? Do you remember how the crisis in Fallujah began? This may come as a surprise to you jimcee, but it is thinking exactly like yours that is getting Americans killed in Iraq every day.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Pardon my sarcasm as it is lost on some. Che, a troll hardly, more like being part of the pajamadeen. Al, I served my time in the military and I moved on to civilian life. I'm now too old to serve so your point is moot. My nephew was killed in the assault on Fallujah and it was a sad day for our family as I'm sure you'll understand. Abu Ghraib may be as bad as any Arab prison but I doubt it. Your right I wouldn't know not having been actually in an Arab prison but if Arab society in general is any indication then it would have to be worse to be in prison in say Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or our 'allies' Saudi Arabia than under American Custody in Iraq. Perhaps we should turn them over to their respective countries to be tried under thier laws but then you'll whine about 'rendering'. John Mann, it was sarcasm but I would consider it cruel to the families of the deceased to not turn over the bodies for immediate burial as is dictated by Muslim rules. I also believe that it would be cruel to feed human flesh to dogs because it would be unhealthy for them (not to mention to the deceased). I guess if you want to stuff me full of straw and beat me down its your perogative....so i'll just be a troll if you don't like my opinion. It is a sad but familiar rejoinder for someone named 'Che'.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Jimcee, If that was sarcasm it was lost on me. I'm sorry for the loss in your family. But it should not be something you bring out to justify your sarcasm here, or to cause chagrine to opposing viewpoints. Not all of us are aware of your situation. That's a cheap shot. And if you wish to join the other wingers whose idea of honest debate is to diss my nome de gere (sp?), you'll have to take a number.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    [STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Saddam is a bad, bad man. We're better than everyone else.] no, you offer excuses and rationalizations for psychopaths. Psychopaths ... PSYCHOpaths ... PSYCHOPATHS!? You mean like
    Military dog handlers at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq engaged in a competition to see which one could make inmates defecate and urinate on themselves, witnesses testified Tuesday at a preliminary hearing for two soldiers. ... Witnesses against the dog handlers included two soldiers previously convicted of abusing prisoners at the American-run military prison near Baghdad, Iraq. ...

    Pvt. Ivan Frederick, who is serving an eight-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., testified via telephone that a dog handled by Cardona bit a prisoner on both thighs. His account was corroborated by another convicted soldier, Pvt. Sabrina Harman.

    ...

    Frederick also said that the defendants talked about a "game" to see "who could get the most detainees to urinate on themselves using the dogs." Frederick said that they were "laughing about it."
    Ohhh, ed must mean those psychopaths, the ones he keeps offering excuses and rationalizations for.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    jimcee, I'm sorry for your loss. But I hope that your recent tragedy doesn't become a justification for torture. Right now many of us are in the throes of wondering how to appropriately responsd to an attack on western civilization by primitive Wahabi fundamentalists. What we shouldn't forget is that part of what makes us civilized is our knowledge that there are some things you just don't do. Sodemizing suspects, taking pictures of them with their anuses exposed, and threatening them with wild animals are among these. It doesn't matter if others elsewhere do the same or worse. It's despicable and of dubious military value. The army knows this and has put many of their own, including a col., in jail. Whether the appropriate heights up the chain of command have been reached is debatable. What's not debatable in a civilized country is whether we ought to be ashamed and pursue punishment.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#34)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Jimcee, it is precisely because Americans are getting killed in Iraq by fighters who are incredibly angry at the occupation, that I think it is highly irresponsible to do the things that are being done in Abu Ghraib. Besides the obvious moral issues raised by torture, of course. I also did military service. I am quite sure that having competitions to make helpless prisoners urinate on themselves is not something a good soldier would contemplate doing. As for whether Abu Ghraib is better or worse than an Arab prison (of which you have no idea) -- that is not the point. The point is, is this dishonourable behaviour what America stands for in the world? Is this what you want your country to be known for? Cowardly terrorizing a prisoner who cannot defend himself? And you allow yourself to joke about it?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    I couldn't agree with Al more. The misbehavior of others does not excuse your misbehavior. Regarding Abu Ghraib, Vietnam POW Pete Peterson has written "Life in a Vietnamese prison was hell, but I was never subjected to such degrading sexual humiliation. The human body can withstand enormous physical pain and recover. But the human mind is different: One seldom fully recovers from ruthless psychological or sexual torture..." What happened in Abu Ghraib was unacceptable. It was unacceptable by military standards which is why the prison guards there have been prosecuted and convicted (whether those up the command chain should have been prosecuted and convicted is another story). I can't understand why others can't see this as unacceptable behavior. The first step in the abuse of others is to deny their humanity. However, in doing so you also deny your own.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#36)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    There is one other significant point that apologists for abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib don't acknowledge. Most of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not military combatants at all, but ordinary civilians picked off the streets during indiscriminate raids. Even if you were to argue that combatants should not be treated humanely (and I would argue this point), how can you justify the abuse of innocent civillians?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#38)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    BB, Wipe you chin.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    YOUR chin.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    From the AP: The former warden of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq testified Wednesday that he attended a meeting in which the then-commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison recommended using military dogs for interrogation.
    Amazing, the pentagon has talking dogs! What other use could they have for interrogations? Everytime the wrongwingers spout the rnc talking points before the facts are in they end up w/ egg on their faces. Of course they never admit it, and their pretzel logic gets more twisted every day. GenCon violation anyone?

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Being afraid of dogs to the point of defacating on ones self is not torture but it is humiliation. What went on at Abu Ghraib was a PR disaster and it has been exacerbated by the the Left's rhetoric led by the NYTimes and the ACLU. The Military is in the process of trying the accused soldiers and justice will be meted out to those who are found guilty. As I said earlier who knew Arabs were so afraid of dogs? I grew up with dogs myself and have been bitten before but I am not that afraid of dogs, attack or otherwise. As long as the dogs weren't released to attack the prisoners then I don't think that constitutes torture. Humiliation maybe, torture no. What amazes me more than anything is how radical Arabs have a tendency to portray themselves as heroic and brave but lose bowel and bladder control when confronted by dogs. And I'm sorry if my sarcasm was lost on some here.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    As long as the dogs weren't released to attack the prisoners then I don't think that constitutes torture.
    Pvt. Ivan Frederick, convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, testified via telephone that in one instance Cardona's dog bit a naked prisoner twice on the left and right thighs.
    Here

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    I should add that the first quote was jimcee's.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Dark Avenger-I'm on the case; I'll be waiting for the signal.

    I am not Arabic, and I am terrified of large, snarling dogs. I have had dogs as pets all my life, large and small ones. I'm still terrified of the ones I mentioned.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#46)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    BB, You don't believe that most of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not military combatants at all, but ordinary civilians picked off the streets during indiscriminate raids. Look here. I know that you will acknowledge that you were wrong after you wipe that egg off your face. You won't be like some of those other commentators who make unsubstantiated accusations and then disappear when someone challenges them.

    Re: Dogs at Abu Ghraib (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    John Horse.. I know that you will acknowledge that you were wrong after you wipe that egg off your face. Those that were arrested "by mistake" have long since been released. I am limited to how many times I can comment. Believe me, I'm not running away.

    Dogs at Abu Ghraib | 45 comments (45 topical)