Sergeant Jamie Dana trained for three years with Rex, a USAF military working dog.

Their vehicle was hit by a land mine. Sergeant Dana almost died, and was in critical condition for an extended period of time.

Sergeant Dana was told that Rex, who she describes as her best friend, was killed in the same attack that wounded her. But Rex was merely wounded, and was back at work, detecting explosives.

Sergeant Dana requested permission to adopt Rex. Initially the USAF said she could only adopt Rex when he was too old, and retired, five to nine years from now. If I read the WaPo article correctly, the USAF is now prepared to unite Sergeant Dana and Rex. But they say "Title 10, U.S. Code 2583" stands in the way.

Because of the USAF's training investment in him, Rex is worth $18,000.

Sergeant Dana, who now walks with a cane, hopes to continue to serve in the military, at a desk job. Eventually, she would like to become a veterinarian.

The US military has acknowledged using White Phosphorus in Fallujah. There have been reports that Americans used incendiaries in Fallujah this last eleven months. Some critics said that the Americans used napalm, or "chemical weapons".

I gather that White Phosphorus can cause unbelievably horrible burns, but that whatever commitment the USA made to forgo the use of napalm does not extend to WP. So, its use, against soldiers, is not, technically, proscribed.

So, it is not napalm. US military spokesmen insist it is just another conventional weapon.

And, one of the questioners on one of the Washington Post's Live Online discussions made a good point. If critics call White Phosphorus a "chemical weapon" the questioner asked, are they going to allow the USA to call Saddam's WP munitions chemical weapons too?

No. White Phosphorus is not a "chemical weapon".

When the gloves came off in Guantanamo, did the condoms go on?

According to a recent story David Hicks's father is saying that Hicks was anally raped while being interrogated.

Hicks doesn't claim that this happened at Guantanamo Bay. His claim is that it happened during the time he was being held aboard the USS Peleliu, a USMC trasnport. But many Guantanamo Bay detainees report they have been threatened with anal rape.

Actually Hicks said he was flown, from the USS Peleliu to a shore-based facility, just for these two, brutal interrogations.

Am I aware that Hicks could be lying? Sure. But I have read the proceedings of those Combatant Status Review Tribunals that have been made public, and some of these guys are clearly innocent. And even guys who, to me at least, seem to have been completely innocent, report beatings and threats of anal rape. So I don't find Hicks claim incredible.

On CBC newsworld this morning there was an item about "war-porn".

I had never heard this neologism before.

There was a porn site in Florida, that had included, among its customers, GIs in Iraq. They wanted to look at barenaked ladies. I don't see anything wrong with looking at wholesome pictures of barenaked consenting adults.

But then the third parties companies that serve as the intermediaries between porn sites and the credit card companies stopped accepting orders from suspect countries, where there was too much fraud. That included Iraq.

This porn company came up with this solution. GIs could barter their war trophy pictures for the porn companies pictures of barenaked ladies. So this porn company started hosting some really graphic photos.

Florida is trying to shut him down. So far without success.

I don't remember the host actually suggesting that some of the photos may have recorded atrocities. But they had been uploaded with some shocking captions, like, "guess which body part"? Or "char-broiled Iraqi".

Reuters has a story a Dutch court blocking the extradition to the USA of an al Qaeda suspect.

"...citing insufficient guarantees over the suspect's basic rights...
...voicing concerns the suspect could be subject to sweeping presidential powers enacted after the September 11, 2001 al Qaeda attacks allowing suspects to be detained indefinitely without charge...
...The risk that the petitioner will be confronted with suspicions of involvement in the al Qaeda network is certainly not imaginary,...
...This gives sufficient reason to believe that with regard to him, fundamental legal guarantees -- such as direct, unlimited and undisturbed contact with a lawyer and timely access to a judge -- could be threatened."

The suspect's name was not released.

He "is suspected of telecommunications fraud with the aim of facilitating contacts between al Qaeda operatives."

I would encourage my American friends to give some thought to this ruling. The USA was once regarded as the very archetype of a democratic country with a respect for the rule of law. But the memory of this once proud reputation has eroded. American promises are not believed, or are examined for Clintonesque loopholes.

And prisoners are withheld from extradition, just like most countries withhold them from torture states like Egypt, Syria and Uzbekistan.

During the summer various American politicians returned from tours of Camp Potemkin Village, at Guantanamo Bay, and gave press conferences describing the detainees having a luxurious menu.

These tours occurred in the middle of a widespread hunger strike -- where one of the issues was the detainees complaints about being denied clean water to drink and food that was safe to eat.

Here is an account, from the detainees, that describes the menu from their point of view:

Various comments have been made publicly by the Bush Administration and its congressional allies about the supposedly high quality of the food in Guantánamo Bay, including statements to the effect that prisoners enjoy such delights as lemon chicken and rice pilaf. This is apparently the fruit of false information provided to important visitors in an effort to use them to relay misinformation back to the public:

"Mr. Deghayes noted that there are a series of prisoners who are working with the military who are used to meet with important visitors to make the Camp look good. One such person was in Camp Romeo with Mr. Deghayes and he eventually confessed that he was working with the military. He had been picked because he spoke various languages. * * * There are at least seven people who have either confessed to this, or been exposed as having done it.

In truth, it is a much different story.

"The food is terrible. In June 2005, one evening at about 6pm, Hisham Sliti found a dead scorpion cooked in his dinner. He had already eaten some of it, and he began to get a bad pain in his stomach, and then vomited. He showed the scorpion to the MP, and the sergeant. The last time we had Lemon Chicken in Guantánamo Bay was never. I have never even seen a lemon in this place."

The main meal at breakfast, served second day for the past two years, consists of two pancakes (often cold), with a piece of fruit. This is alternated with two other breakfasts, served on the second and fourth day in each rotation. On the second day, the meal is eggs with oatmeal - the oatmeal is the dish that most often comes with undesirable items in it such as worms. On the fourth day, it is cornflakes with a vegetarian burger. This is a very strange mix, and the vegetarian burger is very unappetizing.

"The lunch includes boiled tinned vegetables that are tasteless, almost inedible, and most people do not eat them." For example, as counsel observed, on July 3rd, 2005, the lunch included boiled tinned okra, very dry undercooked rice, and a piece of fish that was rancid. On July 3rd, 2005, the lunch included boiled tinned potatoes, mushy carrots (that had a bitter taste and were totally inedible) with kidney beans. The food was all boiled without spices - and was all tasteless except for the bad tinned flavor. There was a slice of stale brown bread, and a tasteless apple. On July 5th, 2005, the lunch included a veggie burger (like the one served at breakfast), tinned brussel sprouts boiled like the English do (soggy and tasteless), very dry undercooked rice, and brown pita bread with a strange aftertaste. For the Military to suggest that this food is of a high quality is risible.

The prisoners have sometimes been given food that is incompatible with their religious beliefs:

"The food is always very limited. One month ago [May 2005] they suddenly started serving food that was clearly unsuitable for Muslims. This went on for a week.

Fortunately, only those who could read English knew this, so the others did not starve. But they were very sad when they learned later when word was able to spread that they had been duped into eating such food."

American spokesmen, and apologists try to explain away the reports of abuse by claiming that al Qaeda training included training in how to falsely claim torture and abuse. I don't know how many Americans believe this claim. Those who do believe it should try to explain how even those detainees who the Americans have acknowledged were improperly imprisoned describe this abuse.

We have an opportunity to read more about GITMO now. We can download the documents from some of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, courtesy of the Associated Press.

I strongly encourage you to read some of them.

Here are earlier JEs I wrote about GITMO.

The real menu at "Club Gitmo" ?
GITMO detainee Omar Deghayes's loss of sight ?
The fate of Sami Al Laithi
Lenient GITMO staff have "Reverse Stockholm Syndrome"?
GITMO's "voluntary" force feeding
Own a Casio watch? Go to GITMO ! Do not pass Go ! No $200
Innocent GITMO detainees, Part 1
Guantanamo suicide fasters restart their hunger strike
GITMO detainees coddled - Now they will get clean water !
Another reason to close the detention camp at Gitmo
Suicide fasters at GITMO ?
spin doctors screw up
Did GITMO General Miller lie to Congress?
Interrogations faked for VIPs at Guantanam
How solid was the evidence against Guantanamo detainees?
Menses girl now teaching interrogation techniques... GIs Masquerading as GITMO detainee's lawyers? I found an account of Omar Khadr's capture... David Hicks affidavit -- about GITMO The Bush commitment to protecting child soldiers How credible are the new Guantanamo stories? The Hick's trial so far It is hard not to be sensational about Hick's trial The review of Guantanamo detainees

I'll link to your JE about Gitmo if you like.

Omar Deghayes lost the sight of his right eye while detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Deghayes suffered a football injury near his eye, when he was a child. This injury left a scar. He is in his late thirties now. American authorities are claiming that his loss of sight was due to a "pre-existing condition". (See also Sami Al Laithi)

Clive Stafford Smith, a prominent UK human rights lawyer, has taken on Deghayes case, and those of 39 other GITMO detainees. According to Smith Deghayes was blinded during an incident when the GITMO mini-riot-squad, the Extreme Reaction Force, (.pdf) brutalized him.

"In March 2004 the Emergency Reaction Force in Camp Delta came into his cell," he said. "The brought their pepper spray and held him dow. The held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes. Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks but he gradually got sight back in one eye. He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky - he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the US in Guantanamo."

Mr Stafford Smith added that one of the officers also pushed his finger in Mr Deghayes eye. It was a combination of the pepper spray and the gouging which led to loss of his sight, the lawyer claimed...

As with Al Laithi American authorities refuse to release Deghayes medical records to his lawyer.

Protest at Brum factory making Cuba shackles
U.S. Military Tube-Feeds 13 Gitmo Strikers
Revealed: the diary of a British man on hunger strike in Guantanamo
Behind barbed wire in Guantanamo
Detainee: They blinded me

Sami Al Laithi is a well educated guy. He was a University lecturer. He had also beena a critic of the Egyptian government. He left Egypt 18 years ago. At the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan he was a language professor at the University of Kabul.

When the Americans invaded Afghanistan all foreigners, especially all Arabs were suspected of involvement with terrorism. And that suspicion was enough for some of them to end up in Gitmo.

Last year the DoD was forced to conduct "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" for each detainee. These tribunals were scandalously unfair, as the case of Murat Kurnaz revealed.

Al Laithi was one of the 38 detainees who was determined to have been innocent all along.

Al Laithi lost the use of his legs while at GITMO. His lawyers say that a guard attacked him while he was in the prison infirmary. They say that shortly after his transfer to GITMO, a guard threw him from his hospital bed, and stomped on his spine, crushing several of his vertebrae.

American authorities say that his loss of the use of his legs was due to a pre-existing condition, but they refuse to release his medical records to his lawyers.

Some of those determined to have been innocent have not been released. There are a number of Chinese who were determined to have been innocent. They have been transferred to Camp Iguana, the small, more comfortable camp where some of the child detainees were kept. American authorities will not release them to China because they are likely to be tortured upon their return.

Al Laithi as a vocal critic of Egypt was very likely to face dangerous repercussions upon return. Al Laithi's lawyers were arguing that Al Laithi should be given an opportunity to find a less hostile country to accept him.

Those efforts proved fruitless. He was returned to Egypt last week. American authorities say that Egyptian authorities assured them he wouldn't be punished. But such assurances are routine when suspects are rendered to torture states.

Given that he was improperly imprisoned for almost four years I would think that the USA could cut the guy a break, and not return him to a torture state when they found he was innocent?

What is the advantage to the USA of repatriating Al Laithi to Egypt? Well, they won't have to make his medical records public if he is returned to Egypt. They can claim they handed everything over to Egyptian authorities.

Guantanamo Detainee Says Beating Injured Spine
US says Egypt vows to treat Guantanamo inmate well
Gitmo's Hunger Strikers : Slowly Dying With No Hope, No Rights
US returns Guantanamo detainee to Egypt

Update: 05/10/10 7pm EST

I said "science professor" but he was actually a professor in English and Arabic.

I read some bizarre allegations from the Columbia Tribune.

The guards apparently believe that interrogators are exchanging their personal information -- names, addresses and Social Security numbers to the detainees, in return for intelligence.

Hello?

How are these interrogators supposed to have learned the guards' stateside addresses, and Social Security numbers?

And if, for the sake of argument, the detainees did learn a guard's personal information, how is he supposed to use it to harm a guard, or their family? All their mail is censored. If they are allowed the occasional visit from a lawyer all the lawyer's notes have to be sent to Virginia to be stored, and classified. The lawyers have to go to Virginia to consult their own notes, or that poriton of them they are allowed to re-read.

Okay, some detainees have been repatriated. If, for the sake of argument, disloyal interrogators had given detainees the personal info of the most brutal guards, and released detainees had memorized this info, what are they supposed to do with it when they get back home? About half of the repatriated detainees traded imprisonment in Gitmo, with detention in a jail in their own country. Of those at large, are they supposed to hire mafia hit men to whack the guards? Are they supposed to hire rogue computer vandals to ruin the guard's credit rating?

Found this:

Q If I could shift gears. Larry, there's a Reuters report that says 200 detainees at Gitmo are now still in the middle of this hunger strike, and 21 of them are now being forced fed via tube. Can you comment on that?

MR. DIRITA: It is a fact that there have been some detainees who have voluntarily entered into this kind of activity. It's being closely monitored. The evidence of medical attention as a result of providing them sustenance is an indication that it's being very closely monitored. As I understand it, it's kind of a rolling thing; it isn't the same people. There's a rotation where some of the detainees will stop for a while, and then there will be another batch that begins this activity. So there's -- as we've discussed before, the detainees have a way of communicating with one another, they have a way of understanding how to grab the attention of the public beyond their incarceration, and it's something that we're managing our best with in a very controlled fashion. There's been -- we've talked, I think, a great deal about the number of people that have been down there to observe operations, and it's being managed in a very careful way.

Q How many -- (off mike)?

GEN. HAM: Our numbers indicate -- I've not seen the Reuters report. Our numbers indicate a couple of dozen. But again, it's on a sort of rotating basis.

In an Amnesty International report I read the justification for calling the force-feeding "voluntary". The DoD prepared a waiver form for detainees. The theory is that every detainee they forcefeed has been given an opportunity to sign the waiver.

Of course those detainees who have lawyers have been told they shouldn't sign anything that their lawyers haven't approved first. And the DoD is restricting their access to their lawyers.

I've read an explanation for why the number of hunger strikers the camp authorities acknowledge differs from the number estimated by human rights workers. Some of the detainees started their hunger strikes by refusing two out of three meals a day. The camp authorities definition that they use for counting hunger strikers is that they have refused every meal for three days in a row. So one meal a day guys don't count. Neither do guys who don't refuse their meals, but then flush them down the toilet.

In a speech delivered this morning (2005/10/06) President Bush claimed American security officials had foiled three attacks on US soil, ten attacks in total.

1) Padilla.

2) Brooklyn Bridge ?

3) Maher Arar ? Lackawanna six?

The BBC news just offered the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Never heard of it.

They didn't offer a guess as to what the third foiled plot was. But if the same analysts who evaluated the "curveball" dossier are still in positions of trust, they could still be standing by the claim that they foiled a major plot in sending Arar, Amalki to be tortured by the Syrians.

In a speech a couple of weeks ago US Ambassador David Wilkins stood by the rendition of Arar to Syria.

Recently a guy was captured in Iraq that the Americans are describing as Zarqawi's "top lieutenant".

I didn't see them provide any evidence of his significance. I wondered if they had ever made this claim before, just as there were half a dozen prisoners who were called "the 20th hijacker".

Well someone compliled a list of those described as being a "top lieutenant" to Zarqawi. His list contains over three dozen "top lieutenants".

My theory? Bush administration spin doctors count on the American public having a short memory. I think they knew they were lying, using tainted, unreliable evidence of Iraq's WMD. I think they felt safe selling the public a line of crap, because they had other, more secret, "evidence" they had been sold, that they believed, without understanding that it too was a line of crap. Curveball, Chalabi. They were paying Chalabi $333,000 a month for intelligence that turned out to be completely fabricated.

But Bush administration officials believed the tainted intelligence. They believed that they would find a meaningful enough WMD program that no one would care if the justifications for the war could later be seen to be lies.

The Washington Post says that, yielding to international criticism the Iraqi legislature changed a last-minute rule about how to count the votes in the upcoming referendum back to its original wording.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that every other point in the JE I posted yesterday remains valid, and a few others I didn't put in, for brevity.

A year ago fans of George Bush's policies were making lots of predictions about Iraq. As I recall the predictions I heard included:
*Iraqi security forces would be taking more of the load of trying to restore law and order.
*Progress would be showing in the attempts to restore the Iraqi infrastructure; water; electricity; sewage.
*The January elections would be beyond criticism.
*A draft constitution would be ready to be presented to the Iraqi electorate by August 15, 2005. This was a requirement of Iraq's Transitional Administrative Law.

Well, order hasn't been restored. The Iraqis security forces still aren't capable of taking a meaningful role in restoring law and order.

Iraqi citizens still can't count on clean water, sewage disposal or reliable supplies of electricity.

The draft constituion wasn't ready on schedule. An extenstion was possible, under the TAL. But the speaker of the legislature had to file paperwork by August 1st -- which didn't happen. So the draft constitution is already of doubtful legitimacy.

Now the UN is criticizing the rules the government is trying to put in place for counting the vote.

Here is a link to an article in the NYTimes, entitled: "New Rules on Iraqi Vote May Violate Standards, U.N. Says"

Here is what the BBC has to say in an article entitled: " UN condemns Iraq charter change".