The Prosecution Rests. The Defense Calls Pappas to the Stand…

By Jean Aylward

The Government's case against dog handler Sgt. Michel Smith could have, arguablyshould have, been its strongest at this point. Its best witnesses hadbeen presented to lay out the case against Smith, and the accused had not yethad an opportunity to present his side of the case...to tell his story. Yet,as the Government rested, it had not painted the picture of a rogue army soldierwho made decisions to violate rules or orders. Instead, the charges pendingagainst Smith of Cruelty and Maltreatment, Conspiracy to Commit Maltreatment,Failing To Obey an Order or Regulation, and Assault appear to be missing themental element or mens rea necessary to convict him of these crimes. Inaddition the Governmenthad not effectively demonstrated that any clearguidance was in place at Abu Ghraib regarding the use of dogs, muzzled or unmuzzled,in interrogations.

Early in its presentation of the case, the Defense called Col.Thomas Pappas to the stand. Testifying under a grant of immunity, Col.Pappas said he mistakenly believed he had the authority to authorize the useof military working dogs (MWDs) in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in December 2003. Pappasqualified, however, that he authorized use of MWDs on a single occasion onlyin mid-December, in relation to one particular request in which a plan was presentedfor their use. Some confusion exists over just how many detainee interrogationswere covered by that single request. It appears the request may havepertained to the interrogations of three detainees who were brought to Abu Ghraibin connection with Saddam Hussein's capture. Pappas said that requestwas made by military intelligence interrogator SSgt Christopher Astor.

SSgt Astor had previously told the court that interrogators asked him forpermission to use the dogs because one of the three above-mentioned "high-value" detaineesappeared to be resistant to other standard interrogation techniques that theywere using on him. Both Astor and Pappas agree that Astor sought and receivedpermission from Pappas to use dogs in the interrogations. Astor testifiedthat Pappas made clear to him that the ultimate authority must come from a higherlevel and that Pappas would seek that permission (from Lt.Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez), yet Pappas testified that he never actually gotthe authority from Sanchez and mistakenly thought he was authorized to make thedecision himself. In addition, Astor testified that Pappas' same day approvalorally specified the "left and right" limitations were that the dogs must remainunder the control of the dog handlers at all times and the dogs had to be muzzledwhen used in the interrogation booth. Pappas recalls his instructionswere to keep the dog muzzled at all times. Pappas said he would not haveeven requested that dogs be unmuzzled for use in interrogations because thenit becomes something other than a control mechanism and gets into areas thatcould violate the Geneva Convention.

The Command Joint Task Force Interrogation policy for Iraq applicable in December2003 was hardly a model of clarity. Dated October12, 2003 and signed by Lt. Gen. Sanchez, the memo states in the "Safeguards" enclosure, "Shouldmilitary working dogs be present during interrogations, they will be muzzledand under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety." Septemberversions of the interrogation policy had listed the use of military working dogsunder the category of "approaches." See here and here. TheOctober policy required that for interrogation approaches not listed under "approaches," arequest must be made to Sanchez along with a description, proposed safeguardsand legal review. The language relating to the use of dogs is puzzlingin that it anticipates the use of dogs, without laying it out under the specificinterrogation approaches. So it is certainly unclear to me whether Sanchez'memo requires his sign-off for the use of dogs in interrogations.

One big theme of the day was that there was some degree of disconnect betweenthe Military Intelligence (MI) and Military Police (MP) sides of the house atAbu Ghraib. On each occasion when Pappas was asked whether MI policiesand procedures or training concerning interrogations and use of MWDs had beencommunicated to the MPs, Pappas indicated they had not because the MPs were notunder his command. Smith was in the MP battalion at Abu Ghraib. TheGovernment asked Pappas, "Would you agree that Abu Ghraib did not do the bestjob of integrating MPs and MI," to which Pappas responded, "Yes, I would agreewith that."

The most revealing statements of the day were Pappas' own:

"Clearly, it would have been helpful to have them (military police personnel)read into the same type of training as interrogators were."

"If I had to list my biggest failure, it was in not setting appropriate controls. That'swhat I needed to do at my leadership level."

"In hindsight, clearly we probably needed to establish some definitive rulesand put out clear guidance to everyone concerned." Pappas was punishedfor his 14 Dec 2003 mistake in authorizing the use of the dogs in one, or asmany as three, interrogations at Abu Ghraib. His letterof reprimand reportedly states that Pappas failed to ensure that subordinateswere"adequately informed of, trained upon, and supervised in the applicationof interrogation procedures"and that he"failed to obtain the approvalof superior commanders" before allowing the "presence of military working dogsduring interrogation of a detainee. Pappas was subject to the military'sArticle 15 process, a type of non-judicial punishment, and was fined $8000, andwas relieved of his command, effectively ending his military career.

So will any officer, Pappas included, ever be criminally punished for theabuses at Abu Ghraib? Or will the lack of clarity and authorizations ofabusive interrogations continue to be pinned solely on enlisted soldiers? TheL.A. Time reported in January that Army criminal investigators had recommendedcriminal charges be filed against Lt.Col. Steven Jordan, who headed the JointInterrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib , but no action on thatrecommendation is believed to have been taken yet. Pappas was granted immunityto testify in "any court-martial resulting from the investigation into allegedoffenses committed by Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan." That would certainlybe a start toward accountability. But it's clear that other officers bearsome responsibility too.