WP: Detainee in Photo With Dog Was 'High-Value' Suspect

Detainee in Photo With Dog Was 'High-Value' Suspect
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 13, 2006; Page A03


When Army Sgt. Michael J. Smith faces a court-martial today on charges that he used his military working dog to harass and threaten detainees, one of the prime examples of that alleged misconduct will be a photograph of Smith holding the dog just inches from the face of a detainee. It is one of the notorious images to emerge from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Although officials characterized the other detainees who appeared in the Abu Ghraib photographs as common criminals and rioters, the orange-clad detainee seen cowering before the dog was different. Detainee No. 155148 was considered a high-value intelligence source suspected of having close ties to al-Qaeda. According to interviews, sworn statements from soldiers and military documents obtained by The Washington Post, Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy was at the center of a military intelligence "special project" designed to break him down, and was considered important enough that his interrogation was mentioned in a briefing to high-ranking intelligence officials at the Pentagon.

Although Ahsy -- also identified in documents by the tribal last name of al-Juhayshi -- was described without his name in an Abu Ghraib military investigation as a "high value" detainee, he has largely remained a mystery. Ahsy's story, and his months of intense interrogations, contrast with statements by U.S. officials that the images of abuse at Abu Ghraib depicted malfeasance of a few soldiers randomly selecting victims on the night shift.

Ahsy could become a central figure in Smith's trial because attorneys for the Abu Ghraib dog handlers have said that military intelligence (MI) directed the soldiers to use their animals as part of an interrogation regimen, one that top officers approved in December 2003. Unlike others implicated in the Abu Ghraib abuse, the dog handlers can point directly to approvals of the technique in question from top commanders....

***

Military officials in Baghdad said Ahsy was released from custody in October 2004 -- 10 months after his capture -- but declined to elaborate.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200962.html?sub=AR

We would never use such methods on a common criminal. We're "civilized", aren't we?

the "statue of Liberty" guy too.

Was the first story wrong? Is it now just being changed for this trial? Why has no one above the rank of Captain been charged in all of this? Doesn't responsibility come with command?

as being "high-value". They are truly taking their cues from the top, as in, break the law now and change the rules later to make legal the criminal activity that was performed.

Herr Bush has brought us back to the "interrogation with a rubber hose" days. Or, as Edwin Meese would say, you wouldn't have been arrested if you were innocent.

The first of 100's to follow. We've finally turned a corner in Iraq.

By the time we get all of Al CIAda in Iraq's Commander Zarkahwi's Second in Commands mopped up, he should be the Lone Insurgent.

Does this mean that I can feel free to set the dogs on "high value" people?
ie. Those that boast about their great (financial) worth.

The reason the emphasis has been placed on the victim being considered a high value target is that it dispels the notion that these acts were random acts of violence by the guards. What the report is trying to convey is that these methods were used on high value targets by order of the commanders and intelligencve officers.

This is the break we wanted! These dog handlers supposedly can point to specific orders to carry out these actions, and have now been charged for them. That means the orders themselves must have been illegal. How many of the commanders are going to be willing to take the fall for orders that came from even higher up? This may blow open the Abu Ghraib story.

Although the other comments were valid, as there may be an attempt to spin at "24" type excuse for attacking this man with a dog. But you are right, it does make a direct connection between high level military intelligence and the torture.

In custody he could be forced to. This shit really chaps my ass; I was MI in the Army and would have been shipped over there had I stayed in. Sounds like some Brass is gonna fry, no surprise. All these orders came from Rummy and Rove. Asshole, RW freakazoids should never have the power to mandate military policy. Look at the results in Iraq. :(

i suppose this is supposed to justify such torture?