« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Spec-Ops Heads: We Follow The Same Detainee Rules As Everybody
As TPMmuckraker noted on Monday, some signs point to a possible distinct set of detention and interrogation rules for Special Operations Forces. However, in a confirmation hearing last week, the incoming heads of the Pentagon's special operations and low-intensity conflict directorate and Special Operations Command both told the Senate Armed Services Committee their forces will follow the same rules as the rest of the military.
The relevant exchange between Mike Vickers, nominated to be assistant secretary of defense for SO/LIC (as it's known), Vice Admiral Eric Olson, nominated to be SOCOM chief, and Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and John Warner (R-VA) is below.
From last week's hearing:
SEN. REED: Thank you. Admiral Olson, there have been reports of detainee abuse by special operators before Abu Ghraib, which raises the question of essentially what are the rules of engagement in interrogation that the U.S. special operators apply? Do you have -- can you give this committee assurances that, as military officers and noncommissioned officers, that they operate within the very strict purview of the Geneva Convention?ADM. OLSON: Yes, sir. Special Operations forces adhere to the same policies, regulations and laws as all the other forces operating in the theater. The policies are set by -- in Iraq and Afghanistan are set by the commander of Central Command and adhere to the Detainee Treatment Act. Special Operations forces fall under the same provisions.
SEN. REED: So you would claim no special exception, given the nature of their operations? They would follow the same guidance as regular forces, conventional forces?
ADM. OLSON: Sir, there are no exceptions granted to Special Operations forces regarding interrogations.
SEN. REED: Mr. Vickers, in your view --
MR. VICKERS: I agree with Admiral Olson, sir. ...
SEN. WARNER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return to your question with regard to the detainees. I did not hear either of the witnesses -- I think it was just -- they used the name of the statute. But I'd like to have you reply about the Army Field Manual. That would be the guiding document for the actual hands-on by the troops in the field. Is that correct, Admiral Olson?
ADM. OLSON: That's correct, sir. It's Army Field Manual 22.3. It is the operative manual, and our forces follow it.
MR. VICKERS: That is correct, sir.
SEN. WARNER: I think it's extremely important that we have that on the record.
Whether this has always been the case remains unclear, as does whether there's any guidance for Special Operations Forces on interrogations outside of FM-22.3.
Comments (4)
parrot wrote on June 20, 2007 1:02 PM:Well...find out!! Jeeze!
TheraP wrote on June 20, 2007 2:53 PM:Ok. So they follow the manual. And this particular version came out when? Just like "all the other forces." And this is "set" by the commander of cent com.
So the question is, what "guidance" regarding the "meaning" of the terms in the manual do the troops get?
After all this is the administration that views standards as "quaint."
It's unfortunate that we can't really rely on the English language anymore, when people from this administration speak. You simply never know what the words, policies, or programs mean anymore. And that makes it impossible to really know or understand what's going on or what people are saying about it.
We might as well throw darts at a wall.
Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 2:57 PM:Ok. So they follow the manual. And this particular version came out when? Just like "all the other forces." And this is "set" by the commander of cent com.
So the question is, what "guidance" regarding the "meaning" of the terms in the manual do the troops get?
After all this is the administration that views standards as "quaint."
It's unfortunate that we can't really rely on the English language anymore, when people from this administration speak. You simply never know what the words, policies, or programs mean anymore. And that makes it impossible to really know or understand what's going on or what people are saying about it.
We might as well throw darts at a wall.
Irina wrote on June 20, 2007 9:43 PM:Another Admiral? And General Hayden is in charge of the CIA. Looks like we may be having the wrong kind of military coup. A number of naval commanders have been removed in the past year, just as Peter Pace and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for opposing bush/cheney's plan for an unprovoked attack on Iran.
I can't help but think that the Fourth Circuit decision had some part in Powell's decision to speak out against Guantanamo. .......
""From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service," Taguba said. "And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
General Taguba via Seymour Hersh via
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/16/1409/88157
Is Powell one of those "senior-officer level we forget those values" types?.