Home > Colonel who authorized use of dogs for interogation found guilty- fined (...)

Colonel who authorized use of dogs for interogation found guilty- fined $8,000 (wow)

by Open-Publishing - Friday 13 May 2005
2 comments

Wars and conflicts International Prison USA

The US colonel who authorised the use of dogs to interrogate prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison has been relieved of command after he was found guilty of dereliction of duty.

Colonel Thomas Pappas, who headed the prison’s military intelligence operations, also received a written reprimand and was fined US$8000 (A$10500) for his involvement in the prisoner abuse scandal.

A statement issued by the military said Pappas did not keep his personnel "adequately informed of, trained upon and supervised in the application of interrogation procedures.”

"He was also alleged to have failed to obtain the approval of superior commanders before authorizing a non-sanctioned interrogation technique - specifically, the presence of military working dogs during the questioning of a detainee,” it said.

The use of dogs in interrogation was revealed when photos of prisoner abused emerged last year. Some of the pictures showed US guards holding black dogs just centimetres from prisoners’ faces.

Pappas’ punishment comes just days after the prison’s commander Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted and relieved of command.

Karpinski, the highest ranking US officer to be punished over the scandal, was found guilty of dereliction of duty and leadership failure, but not for contributing to the abuse.

She maintains she was made a scapegoat after several of the military’s top brass were cleared of any responsibility.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews...

Is an $8000 fine enough punishment for breaking the Geneva Conventions?

Forum posts

  • Hey, wow. Illegal interrogation using a potentially deadly animal. He definately deserved his slap on the wrist.

  • I recently heard first-hand from a highly qualified source that the dogs were trained to go after genitals.

    This is apparently why they were so greatly feared by the inmates.

    Abu Ghraib was clearly meant to be a warning to all Muslims.

    And as for the reasons for torture—finding WMD—there were none. Therefore the torture could only provide useless information. The inmates could only cave in by lying about WMD, to stop their pain or fear.

    Interesting how creating a monster—or object of hate—can make a monster out of the creator, or make him be hated.