Not about "rotten apples"

The Washington Post reports on another case of torture by American forces - this time resulting in death. Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, an insurgant leader, turned himself in in November 2003 after US forces took his family hostage. His US captors decided he was being insufficiently cooperative during interrogations, and he was beaten to within an inch of his life by CIA personnel and Iraqi paramilitaries working in a US facility. Two days later, during another interrogation session, he was zipped into a sleeping bag, which was sealed with electrical wire. A US soldier then sat on him and asked questions while he suffocated to death. Two soldiers from the 3rd ACR are now on trial for his murder, while two others face nonjudicial punishment. The Army has tried to cover up the details, but what has leaked out is truly disturbing - and what has been openly admitted is even worse.

Mowhoush's autopsy report gives the cause of death as "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression". However, it also notes that

Mowhoush had "contusions and abrasions with pattern impressions" over much of his body, and six fractured ribs. Investigators believed a "long straight-edge instrument" was used on Mowhoush, as well as an "object like the end of an M-16" rifle.

These injuries are most likely caused by his interrogation by the CIA and an Iraqi paramilitary unit, described by the Washington Post using material from the court case:

On Nov. 24, the CIA and one of its four-man Scorpion units interrogated Mowhoush, according to investigative records.

"OGA Brian and the four indig were interrogating an unknown detainee," according to a classified memo, using the slang "other government agency" for the CIA and "indig" for indigenous Iraqis.

"When he didn't answer or provided an answer that they didn't like, at first [redacted] would slap Mowhoush, and then after a few slaps, it turned into punches," Ryan testified. "And then from punches, it turned into [redacted] using a piece of hose."

"The indig were hitting the detainee with fists, a club and a length of rubber hose," according to classified investigative records.

Soldiers heard Mowhoush "being beaten with a hard object" and heard him "screaming" from down the hall, according to the Jan. 18, 2004, provost marshal's report. The report said four Army guards had to carry Mowhoush back to his cell.

Note that all of this occured in a US military facility, to a prisoner in the custody of the US Army, and who according to that army enjoyed the full protection of the Geneva Conventions. But this isn't a case of negligence - Mowhoush was turned over to the CIA and paramilitaries precisely because of what they would do to him. His US Army interrogators arranged for him to be beaten and tortured so that he would answer their questions.

Two days later, after being dragged moaning from his cell, Mowhoush asphyxiated under interrogation. And here we get to what's most sickening about this case: this isn't about "rotten apples", or a few bad men who used interrogations as a cover for unauthorised sadism. The interrogators who turned Mowhoush over to the CIA to be beaten and then smothered him to death believed they were acting both appropriately and legally - as do their superiors:

In a preliminary court hearing in March for Williams, Loper and Sommer, retired Chief Warrant Officer Richard Manwaring, an interrogator who worked with Welshofer in Iraq, testified that using the sleeping bag and putting detainees in a wall locker and banging on it were "appropriate" techniques that he himself used to frighten detainees and make them tense.

Col. David A. Teeples, who then commanded the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, told the court he believed the "claustrophobic technique" was both approved and effective. It was used before, and for some time after, Mowhoush's death, according to sources familiar with the interrogation operation.

If true, this represents a massive failure by commanders to ensure that their subordinates abide by international and US military law in their treatment of POWs. And if Colonel Teeples allowed such activities within his command, then under the principle of command responsibility, he should be right there in the dock beside his men.

Update: There's a more analytical view at Balkinization.