It seems that medicine and sadism can easily merge in the War on Terror. But was the abuse sanctioned by the US Justice Department? And is David Passaro a murderer or a scapegoat -- or both?
The trial of David Passaro, a former Army Special Forces soldier and the first civilian charged with mistreating a detainee, began yesterday. Passaro served as a medic contracted by the CIA when he, according to prosecutor Michael Sullivan, in June 2003 beat and abused the afghan detainee Abdul Wali for “two solid nights.” Allegedly tortured in a most sadistic way, the dying detainee allegedly begged his captors to kill him quickly, before Passaro returned to the cell, but he was extended no such mercy. In stead, he died slowly.
Passaro beat Abdul Wali for "two solid nights", leading him to plead with prison guards to shoot him to end his suffering, prosecutor Michael Sullivan said in an opening statement. Wali died of his injuries.
"At one point he (Passaro) lined up on Wali as though he was going to kick in a football game and kicked him full in the groin. Abdul Wali was lifted into the air," said Sullivan.
Among other injuries, Wali suffered a suspected fractured pelvis that would have made it impossible for him to urinate, he said.
Passaro is charged with four counts of assault and accused of using his hands, feet and a large flashlight to beat Wali, an Afghan detainee, who died two days after the interrogation in June 2003.
The prosecutor said 82nd Airborne soldiers will testify that during one interrogation session, Passaro left the room and Wali begged one of the paratroopers guarding him "to please shoot me before the defendant returned."
Passaro also has a criminal record.
Passaro trained as a police officer in Hartford, Conn., but was fired in 1990 during his probationary period after he was arrested by state police on an assault charge, according to Hartford police spokeswoman Nancy Mulroy. Passaro pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, she said.
Sullivan said guards and other eyewitnesses will give their testimony. Passaro’s lawyer, Joseph Gilbert, on the other hand, has an interesting defense:
"Dave is guilty only of trying to serve his country," Gilbert said.
During the trial defense lawyers are likely to argue that techniques Passaro used in the interrogation were consistent with CIA guidelines approved by his superiors. Gilbert said on Monday his client was not trained in interrogation.
If this is indeed correct, then it is another example that US agencies can torture people at will as long as they choose not to define it as “torture.” The prosecution alleges that Passaro, while beating the detainee with a flashlight, told prison guards that “he was acting under ‘special rules’ to use force during the night-time interrogation.” Sullivan claims that this was not true, referring to a directive that prohibited "direct physical contact."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Sullivan said Passaro told the soldiers they couldn't touch Wali, but that he could, "because I have special rules."
"David Passaro had no special rules," Sullivan said. "He made them up."
Sullivan said Wali was chained to the floor and wall of a cell as Passaro kicked him, and struck him with the flashlight and his fists. Once, he said, Passaro kicked Wali in the groin, lining up like a place-kicker in football. Passaro's fingerprints were in batteries from the flashlight, Sullivan said, adding that photos will detail the extent of Wali's injuries.
The question then becomes: Have CIA contractors, interrogators and other US agents been subject to regulations that diverge from such directives and allow them to abuse, torture, and possibly kill detainees?
Also, it seems very odd that Passaro had no training in interrogation. If true, what the heck was he doing working as an interrogator?
Passaro was part of a clandestine paramilitary team made up of U.S. Special Forces and CIA personnel who capture and interrogate Taliban and al Qaeda members. He had worked for the CIA since December 2002 and got to Asadabad in early June 2003, said a U.S. official familiar with the case.
Passaro denies the charges.
Passaro maintains his innocence and his lawyers presented him as a good soldier who was doing his duty in dangerous circumstances and went out of his way to offer care to Wali, making sure he had water and food.
Furthermore, the defense attorney’s argument not only contradicts the prosecutor’s version, but also seems to offer a rather strange defense of how the US is handling its prisoners.
Defense attorney Joseph Gilbert said Passaro did not harm Wali. He said Passaro was only doing the work of the government by trying to interrogate the man. The military thought Wali was responsible for recent rocket attacks.
Passaro's attorneys said Wali was a dangerous man who became aggressive and even tried to reach for the guards' guns at one point.
They said that the third day the suspect was in custody, the man knocked himself unconscious by hitting his head against a wall.
The defense said Passaro, who was also a medic, tried to revive Wali. But Wali died in U.S. custody.
Well, if Wali felt inclined to knock himself unconscious “by hitting his head against a wall,” is that supposed to strengthen the assumption that any injury that he suffered was brought upon him by himself?
Also, Wali came to the U.S. Base voluntarily.
Passaro worked at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan that was frequently subject to rocket attacks. Wali, a suspect in the attacks, turned himself in voluntarily at the gates of the base and was then interrogated, according to the indictment.
Only three days after he turned himself in, Wali “died in his tiny mud-walled cell.”
Still, no murder is alleged.
Justice Department officials said that Passaro was charged with assault rather than murder because no autopsy had been performed on Wali that would have established the cause of death.
The US government takes pride in its effort to assign responsibility and accountability where they belong.
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said: "We take allegations of wrongdoing very seriously, and it is important to bear in mind that the CIA immediately reported these allegations to the CIA inspector general and the Department of Justice. . . . The CIA does not support or condone unlawful activities of any sort and has an obligation to report possible violations of the law to the appropriate authorities."
Still, the Washington post reported in 2004:
A member of the U.S. military who was based in Asadabad when the death occurred said three CIA workers -- one full-time employee and two contractors -- took part in interrogating Wali. Special Forces guards checked on him every several hours. About an hour after one interrogation session, guards entered the holding cell and discovered that "the man was dead," he said.
Immediately after Wali's death, he said, the CIA personnel left the base by helicopter. The soldier later learned that the CIA station chief in Kabul had been told that Special Forces troops had killed the man, according to the military source and an official in Washington. When the Special Forces team threatened to make the case public, the military source said, the CIA personnel admitted what had happened. An intelligence official in Washington yesterday called that allegation "flat wrong."
The Washington post also reports on Wali’s last days, as told by the person who convinced Wali to give himself up:
Wali's final days were chronicled by an American, Hyder Akbar, 18, whose father, Sayed Fazl Akbar, had returned to his native Kunar province to become the governor there after the fall of the Taliban. Portions of a tape-recorded diary that Hyder Akbar kept during a visit with his father were played Dec. 12 on National Public Radio.
Sayed Fazl Akbar, speaking into his son's tape recorder, said he asked the Americans to hold off using military force to capture Wali, who he said "had been on the Americans' and the coalition force's most-wanted list for cooperating with terrorists or being a terrorist." Wali was deeply fearful of turning himself in to the Americans, said the elder Akbar, so Akbar sent his son to go with him "as a sign of trust."
Said Hyder Akbar: "So I took him to the Americans. And, like, they're asking him where he was 14 days ago on the night of the three rockets. And this guy, like, don't have calendars, you know? . . . I just put my hand on his shoulder and I let him know: 'Just say the truth. Nothing is going to happen if you just say the truth.' And he was absolutely petrified, and he could barely whisper the okay."
Three days later, Hyder Akbar and his father returned to Asadabad to check on Wali. A translator named Steve and another American named Dave sat down with them, according to Hyder Akbar, and said, "Unfortunately, Abdul Wali passed away." Hyder Akbar said: "My jaw dropped. It's like 'Oh, my God.' . . . They said that at 3:30, 4, he just collapsed and they tried to make him stand again. And he stood for a second, but then he fell again and then they did the whole routine with the CPR and they said no expenses were held, just like they would have treated an American life."
Hyder Akbar said the Americans told him Wali was well treated, but that he had "put rocks in his mouth," tried to break free of his shackles and "hit his head against the wall a couple of times." Akbar said he was taken to see the body and saw no marks on Wali.
"It's hard not to feel responsible," Akbar said. "Poor guy was only 28. He was just so scared."
Passaro maintains that
“the government is using him as a scapegoat in the wake of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.”
It’s also interesting to note that the fact that this case has gone to trial at all, seem to be a consequence of the U.S. PATRIOT Act, which was perhaps unintended, but also perhaps convenient for the government when the abuse was about to become known to the public anyway.
Now, as for the question that introduced this diary:
“It's not only about this man Passaro who's accused of abusing a detainee, it's largely about the CIA interrogation techniques after 911,” said Priti Patel with Human Rights First, a New York-based organization that works to protect and promote fundamental human rights as laid out in the International Bill of Rights.
In February, Boyle ruled that Passaro can present evidence to show that he followed government orders [JURIST report] when he allegedly abused the detainee. In a separate ruling last week, Boyle ruled that until Passaro shows who approved his actions, Passaro cannot gain access to sealed documents [AP report], including a memo that Passaro says outlines interrogation tactics allowed by the Justice Department.
Much of the evidence that prosecutors and defense lawyers plan to use is classified by the government, including the names and titles of some witnesses, but the government has revealed that three paratroopers will testify that they saw Passaro beat Abdul Wali [Wikipedia profile], who later died in US custody.
…
During closed proceedings Monday morning, attorneys for the government tried to prevent Passaro's lawyers from calling CIA employees as witnesses. Passaro's attorney complained that the government is trying to deny Passaro due process by claiming that much of the evidence is classified, even though at least one witness has appeared on national television to discuss the case.
…
Boyle ruled Monday that several CIA employees, including former CIA director George Tenet, would not be required to testify in Passaro's trial […].
Everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, there may be reason to fear that there are several guilty parties in this matter – if not as a matter of law, then certainly as a matter of morality. The former seems to be divorced from the latter in much of the Bush administration’s policy and practice. Indeed, there seems to be a huge accountability problem when a small number of US agencies and estates, largely under the control of the same interest group, both author, promulgate, implement and interpret the laws and regulations, while the same agencies control most of the information regarding the unknown number of souls that have perished in this protracted, and ever expanding tragedy called the War on Terror. This is not a balance of power. It is an abuse of power.