Prison Dog Intimidation Counts (as torture)

Yesterday I read the complete memo made by the justice department in order to primarily circumvent the Geneva Conventions for torture (which as defined by this memo includes degrading treatment and punishment prohibited by the 5th, 8th and/or 14th Amendments to the Constitution). It attempts to protect the military from being held accountable for torture in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay (which, according the this memo, is in the jurisdiction of the United States and cannot be applied to International Law (or, coincidentally, U.S. law)). The intimidation of prisoners by dogs is a direct violation of our laws and international laws and is therefore in and of itself torture.

Generals and other high ranking Military officials specifically OK'd the use of dogs as intimidation, implicit threats, and a precursor to interrogations.

The newly obtained documents reinforce the picture that the abuse falls into two categories: sexual humiliation and beatings at the hands of MPs, and intimidation using dogs that is clearly tied to military intelligence. The sexual abuse happened weeks and even months before the dog incidents, some of which appear to be part of an organized strategy by military intelligence to scare detainees into talking, according to the statements.

Sgts. Michael J. Smith and Santos A. Cardona, Army dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib, told investigators that military intelligence personnel requested that they bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites multiple times to assist in questioning detainees in December and January. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was in charge of military intelligence at the prison, told both soldiers that the use of dogs in interrogations had been approved, according to the statements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html