First court-martial for an officer in Abu Ghraib scandal gets under way

"Do you believe there is a difference between wrong and illegal," [Jordan's lawyer Captain Samuel Spitzberg] asked [potential jurors].

For his part, Jordan contends that he is innocent. Prior to his deployment at Abu Ghraib in 2003, he had no experience in overseeing a detention facility or carrying out interrogations. In a report of the abuse at Abu Ghraib, Jordan was described as focused on improving the day-to-day life of his subordinates and "ill-prepared to run the prison, and as a result was 'little involved in the interrogation operations,' " reports The Times, a London-based daily.

His title of "director" and precise responsibilities were never formally confirmed and a military investigation into the scandal said his commanders made a "critical error" in not replacing him within weeks of being given the job.

Instead, Colonel Jordan, who was sent to Abu Ghraib three days after arriving in Iraq, spent his time trying to improve the lives of his personnel, who were living in squalid conditions and coming under almost daily mortar attacks without the proper body armour. The Colonel was hit by shrapnel three days after arriving at the prison during an attack that killed two other men.

Already, 11 soldiers have been convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, reports the British Broadcasting Corp. Notably, Pvt. Lynndie England and Spc. Charles Graner Jr., who were both prominently featured in the abuse photos leaked to the media, were sentenced to three and 10 years in prison, respectively. The prison commander in Iraq at the time, Janis Karpinski, faced administrative action and was demoted from the rank of general but faced no criminal charges.

The BBC's Jamie Coomarasamy in Washington says that whatever the verdict in Lt-Col Jordan's trial, many will continue to believe that there are those far higher up the military and civilian chain of command who should answer for an episode that did such damage to the image of the US military.

Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association has adopted a new resolution that lists specific interrogation techniques that it denounces. The resolution comes months after it was revealed that psychologists had helped craft aggressive interrogation tactics after the Sept. 11 attacks for use by the military and intelligence agencies, reports Salon.com.

The APA has condemned torture in the past. But this year the organization was responding, in part, to intense internal pressure from some members who were angered by the Bush administration's permissive interpretation of prohibitions on abuse. The new resolution aims to be more precise and detailed, articulating "an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation" in brutal interrogation methods, from mock executions to waterboarding.

"The APA came in line with the minimum of its responsibilities by condemning, in certain circumstances, the most egregious forms of torture being committed in our name," said Steven Reisner, a psychologist who has been pressing the organization to withdraw from detainee interrogations.

Page: 1 | 2