The ACLU has posted some interesting documents they received through a FOIA request. The following was an email from what appears to be an FBI agent in Iraq dated May 22nd of 2004.
We also have instructed our personnel not to participate in interrogations by military personnel which might include techniques authorized by Executive Order but beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice.
…
We are aware that prior to a revision in policy last wee, an Executive Order signed by President Bush authorized the following interrogation techniques amonth others sleep “management,” use of MWDs (military work dogs), “stress positions” such as half squats, “environmental manipulation” such as the use of loud music, sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.
…
I have been told all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if high-level authority is granted.
So there you have it. The President authorized, through and Executive Order, the use of military dogs, sleep deprivation, hoods, stress positions and sensory deprivation. According to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War the following are rights of POW’s.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
I would say that the sexual degredation clearly violates clause (c), while the use of military dogs clearly violates clause (a).
Is a MWD Military Work Dog a threat to someone’s life? I thought the dogs were used to pee in their cells and on their clothes …
You see that clause about dignity? If a military dog is not a threat to someone’s life (they are trained to kill on command afterall) then peeing on their clothes and beds has to constitute “humiliating and degrading treatment”.