US Army Interrogator Discusses Torture in Iraq

[Ant]

Spc. Tony Lagouranis (Ret.) was a U.S. Army interrogator from 2001 to 2005, and served a tour of duty in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005. He was first stationed at Abu Ghraib; in the spring he joined a special intelligence gathering task force that moved among detention facilities around the country. Here, he talks about how he found a "culture of abuse" permeating interrogations throughout Iraq.

Some excerpts...

Talk to me about the "culture of abuse." How quickly would it ramp up? How bad would it get?

Well, I never saw too much with the interrogators who were actually professional interrogators that they were doing much more than what I described to you: the dogs, the stress positions, the hypothermia. Which ended up not really causing severe bodily harm, anyway, to the prisoner. The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture people in their homes. They were using things like ... burns. They would smash people's feet with the back of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was serious stuff.

When you say "burns," what do you mean?

I remember one guy who was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe on a humvee, and he had a pretty huge blister on his leg. Another guy, I don't know what they used to burn him, his legs. He was blindfolded so he didn't know either, but it looked like it might have been a lighter. He had some pretty big, [some] smaller blisters, but a lot of them.

But basically, they weren't getting anything then, at all?

Yeah, and I don't think they ever really did, honestly. ... You know what they were getting? I can't tell you exactly what the HCRs are -- they're human collection requirements, and you have to be answering one of these in order to write an intelligence report. And there was just pressure from higher so that they could look better and show that we're doing something, to just generate more and more of these reports.

And a lot of them have -- I mean, they have no intelligence value, you know? Like a lot of it's just sort of PR stuff or psych ops stuff -- you know, how do Iraqis feel about this and this, or this and this? -- which you can go in and get that in an interrogation, no problem. And so people were writing tons of these things, and that would go into the PowerPoint slide and they'd brief the general on this, and everybody'd get patted on the back. But they weren't getting intel that people could use. ...

They were telling us all the time, "We need timely, actionable intelligence." And that psych ops stuff isn't that; that's not our job to get that stuff.

And he might, along the way find himself stripped--

Yes. Right. I mean, when I felt that people were being frank, and they were telling me why they joined the insurgency or why they gave money to whatever, they were telling me that it was because somebody had been killed in their family by the Americans, or somebody had been arrested and humiliated. ...


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/lagouranis.html

[J Bananas]

I remember one guy who was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe on a humvee

lol

[acbaylove]

Honestly, Ant you looks very pathetic to me. I mean Bush is an idiot, don't get me wrong. But you can't seriously (i know you do) think Bush has something specific to do with this shit. This is the army. They fight wars. That's how they fight wars. It doesn't mean shit if it's a pacific mission, or a real war. It doesn't care if it's Clinton/NATO ordering an attack or if it's Bush/UN. Or Bush alone. Army acts like that, everywhere in the world. In the ex-Jugoslavia french soldiers raped local girls. Clinton bombed the Serbian National TV. They were there for a mission of peace. This is what happens EVERYTIME there's a war. Or a mission of peace. Don't act like you're surprised. You can't fight a war for the peace. A war is a war. And peace is peace. They're there fighting a war. And those are the typical actions of a war. What's so shocking?

[Ant]

This wasn't a typical war.  This whole mess is called "operation iraqi freedom", after the WMD couldn't be found supposedly this has bee a war to liberate the iraqi people.  You don't find any hypocrisy in learning that during "operation iraqi freedom" we're torturing iraqi civilians in their homes by smashing their legs with axes, burning them, etc?  This wasn't a war against an enemy, it was a war to liberate an oppressed people from Saddam.  If we were fighting a real enemy your argument might make sense, but according to our leaders we're there to help the iraqi people, not beat them senslessly and kill innocent civilians for the fuck of it. 

So is this Bush's fault? No, but its yet just another example of the right's hypocrisy in America.  The war supporters cant even figure out what the fuck it is they are doing over there.  One day we're liberating people, the next day when something like this comes to light, suddenly fighting a war against the enemy.

And still, you have troops over there, we have troops over there.  But your so narrow-minded you support shit that is putting the troops at risk. 

"I felt that people were being frank, and they were telling me why they joined the insurgency or why they gave money to whatever, they were telling me that it was because somebody had been killed in their family by the Americans, or somebody had been arrested and humiliated. ..."

No one has discussed us being able to acquire a wealth of valuable information from all this shit.  Instead everyone that comments on it seems to be saying the same thing.  Torture produces bad information, and only helps grow the insurgency. 

[acbaylove]

This wasn't a typical war.  This whole mess is called "operation iraqi freedom"

Bullshit. A war is a war. This one was/is a war. The reasons (iraqi freedom. mmmm..) have nothing to do with the fact it's a war. The reason is just the political interpretation of the war, the excuse. The justification. But a war fought for the peace doesnt exists. Them soldiers were sent there to fight a real war against real enemies. They gave those soldiers a gun, they sent them to war. People died. How can you rationally think those soldiers can really consider it a "operation freedom" when people is dying? They consider it a war. So those tortures are just a natural consequence of the war. I'm not justificating them, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's normal to have tortures when you have enemies. And Iraqi are seen as enemies by the US soldiers. Obviously.