In fact, according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which the U.S. had a major role in drafting, those who initiate a war of aggression quite literally bear individual criminal responsibility, not only for waging unprovoked war, but for the war crimes which inevitably flow from aggression.

In 1946, the chief American prosecutor of the first Nuremberg trial, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, took this principle seriously enough to help secure the conviction of 17 of the most prominent surviving German leaders for initiating a war of aggression. Eleven were sentenced to death. Three received life sentences and three received lesser sentences.

Reading the transcript of the first Nuremberg trial, we see that all who committed war crimes, from the foot soldiers to the highest leaders, were to be held responsible for their crimes. We also see, however, that the leaders who initiated the aggression were assigned primary criminal responsibility by the prosecutors and by the Tribunal, since none of the subsequent crimes would have been committed had the aggression not occurred. This principle was absolutely central to the Nuremberg Charter and Trials.

Moreover, we see that the intent of the authors of the Charter was not to limit the principles involved in this body of law to prosecution of Germans in 1946 but rather to set a precedent for all times and for all countries, including the United States.

Article 6 of the Charter states: "The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."

And from Article 7: "The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment."

On Aug. 12, 1945, three months before the trial began, Justice Jackson made the intent of the American prosecution and of the law clear in a statement on the War Trials Agreement:

"If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure. ...We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."

Bearing in mind the relationship of the Marines now awaiting trial for the Haditha massacre to their Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates, Justice Jackson's words in his Nov. 21, 1945, opening statement concerning the German leaders then on trial go to the heart of the matter:

"These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war. ...We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists, of the Nazi movement. Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?"

If we bear in mind that the U.S. aggression in Iraq was a violation not only of the Nuremberg Charter but of the U.N. Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51) and if we remember the several shifting justifications for the aggression presented by the Bush administration, Justice Jackson's later words that day resonate today for us and for President Bush:

"The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes. ... Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."

And speaking to the concept of individual responsibility for war criminals at the highest levels, then and in the future, Justice Jackson said:

"The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors."

In his closing statement for the American prosecution, July 26, 1946, Justice Jackson hammered again at the relationship between the criminals at the bottom and the criminals at the top:

"The gist of the offense is participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are rules which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like these defendants, who never get blood on their own hands but who lay plans that result in the shedding of blood. All over Germany today, in every zone of occupation, little men who carried out these criminal policies under orders are being convicted and punished. It would present a vast and unforgivable caricature of justice if the men who planned these policies and directed these little men should escape all penalty."

On Oct. 1, 1946, judgment was delivered by the Nuremberg Tribunal. From the judgment:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. ...Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."

The simple truth is that had President Bush not ordered an illegal war of aggression, the 24 civilians in Haditha, along with countless thousands of other Iraqis and Americans, would be alive today.

Justice Jackson's last sentence in his closing statement, July 26, 1946, concerns the German leaders on trial at the time, but speaks to contemporary American leaders as well: "If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime."

Peter Dyer is a machinist who moved with his wife from California to
New Zealand in 2004.

We really don't know why the media giants have veered away from their Traditional cheerleading role to focus on the u.s. military's atrocities at haditha. After all, they have ignored scores of similar incidents that have been Reported on the internet over the past three years.

What makes the haditha massacre so special when many more have gone Unreported? [2]

It's doubtful that the media executives are suddenly bothered by "pangs of Remorse" about the extensive mayhem and suffering they've helped to create in Iraq. It's more likely that their unexpected attention to haditha indicates Growing divisions among the american elites about bush's alarming mismanagement of The war. If his "post-war" military occupation had gone smoothly, there'd be No recriminations against - or even recognition of - the haditha massacre. Americans like a winner, and they're prepared to overlook the heinous criminal Indiscretions of their leaders if they're victorious.

Right now, the government-corporate-media complex is characterizing haditha As an "anomaly" that diverges from the norm of military conduct. But that is Not what the iraqis say. Even the newly-appointed iraqi prime minister, nouri Al-maliki, admits that such killings are a "daily occurrence," and that american Soldiers routinely "crush iraqis with their vehicles and kill them on Suspicion." in fact, it is impossible that the u.s. military has exterminated 100,000 Civilians without leaving behind a conspicuous trail of war crimes. Haditha Is the inevitable upshot of the illegal invasion and military occupation; it Fits into the familiar pattern of serial-killing that the media mischaracterizes Under the rubric of "pacification."

We know that stories, like haditha, rarely find their way into the evening News. They would interrupt the optimistic flow of jingoism and cheerful Predictions that dominate the broadcast media's storyline. None of its presstitutes Would be brazen enough to suggest that this petro-war was entirely motivated by Crass self-interest, or that the bush administration's calls for the "democratization" and "liberation" of the middle east are merely rationalizations Intended to divert the public's attention from the daily record of slaughter. They Know that such honesty would surely be a career-ending move.

The basic function of the media never changes.

The mainstream media is a top-down corporate institution that's designed to Provide a business-friendly worldview and to enhance the profits of its Investors. Its embedded presstitutes are paid handsomely to transform a vicious Colonial war into a "noble cause," and to defend the military's indiscriminate Killing of civilians as if it were the highest expression of "patriotism." thus, Haditha is the logical extension of that system.

Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you Commit atrocities." the haditha massacre proves that voltaire was right. He wisely Anticipated the role of media in the modern era: it is the pitch-man for Atrocities which are thinly disguised as acts of "self-sacrifice" and "humanitarianism." voltaire never imagined that the cynical manipulation of public Perceptions could evolve into an entire industry. In fact, the corporate-controlled Media is more like an army than an industry: it is a band of mercenaries who are Used to carry out information-warfare against their own people.

The media's propaganda campaign has been the most successful part of the iraq War. News programs have faithfully delivered the same storyline from every Soapbox in america, crowding out opposing points of view. The synchronization And uniformity of the message has left no doubt that the corporate-controlled Media's propaganda system is vastly superior to any other. Its "profit-motive" Creates the best possible incentive for manipulating the public mind and Corrupting democracy. Indeed, the media has become a more valuable asset to the Department of defense than an abrams tank, or a laser-guided missile. It is the One truly indispensable weapon in the pentagon's arsenal.

The reporting on haditha hasn't damaged the pentagon-media alliance. Iraq has Produced thousands of hadithas all of which will remain ignored or concealed By the media.

Where are the photos of falluja?

Two years have passed since rumsfeld ordered the city of falluja flattened in An act of vindictive rage, and the media still hasn't provided even one Picture of the devastation. How is it that the clueless american people fail to Grasp this obvious sign of collaboration between the media and the pentagon Warlords?

The media knew about haditha months before it appeared in time magazine. They

Chose to ignore it rather than expose bush's blood-sport to the world.

Eventually, either the american people or an international war-crimes Tribunal will have to seriously address the media's culpability in the deaths of Hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi non-combatants. Their conspiracy to Facilitate mass murder is not protected under the first amendment any more than Shouting "fire" in a crowded building. Moreover, the media has played crucial Roles in deliberately misleading the country into an illegal war of aggression, And in subsequently aiding and abetting numerous war crimes. Roles for which They will have to be held accountable.

The persistent slaughter in iraq is the work not only of the fanatical Right-wing neocons but also of the media's information-managers, who pumped their Lies through the public airwaves and made the war a fait accompli. They've Played a central role in decimating iraqi society and putting america on the Fast-track to ruin.

The bloody footprints from haditha lead straight to the corporate Headquarters at time warner, viacom, and fox news.

They are every bit as guilty as any marine who served in kilo company.

1] Here are the basic facts. In addition to the U.S. Marines' alleged massacre of 24 innocent civilians in Haditha on 11-19-05, they also allegedly massacred 11 innocent civilians in Ishaqi on 3-15-06. Evidence exists to buttress this second major charge that revenge murders were committed against civilians: a BBC videotape shows that U.S. troops first bound and then shot 11 Iraqis execution style, including 5 children and 4 women. And last week, a third questionable killing by U.S. troops took place in Samarra, where they shot 2 women to death in their car. Soldiers claimed their car failed to stop at a checkpoint. However, one of the slain women was pregnant and about to give birth, and it appears likely that they were merely rushing to the hospital. [See Tim Harper's 6-2-06 CD/Toronto Star article, "U.S. Accused Of New Iraq Massacre: Military Probes Death Of 5 Kids, 4 Women"

[2] Two essays contend the U.S. military is responsible for more massacres in Iraq:

A. Mike Ferner's 6-2-06 Counterpunch essay, "Haditha Is Not An Aberration: More, Lots More" [The author, who served as a Navy Corpsman during the Vietnam War, contends that the U.S. military has committed numerous war crimes in Iraq. "Would somebody please tell me that the corporate media is talking about U.S. war crimes in Iraq besides just Haditha?"]:

Dahr Jamail's 5-31-06 AntiWar.com essay, "Countless My Lais In Iraq" ["Just like Abu Ghraib, while the media spotlight shines squarely on the Haditha massacre, countless atrocities continue daily, conveniently outside the awareness of the general public."]

ENDNOTES [3]-[34] ARE RECENT OP-EDS, EDITORIALS AND ARTICLES ABOUT HADITHA.

[3] Tom Englehart's 6-6-06 TomDispatch.com essay, "The Real Meaning Of Haditha" ["Other than revealing just how overstretched the American military is in Iraq, such an 'incident'... is also a kind of confession -- of failure. If, as a soldier, you feel you are protecting anyone in an area, you simply do not slaughter random civilians, no matter how you 'snap'." The American media has a sordid history of knowing complicity in the cover-up and damage-control phases of the U.S. military's massacrest: (a) it treats them as if they were merely "a big public relations problem"; and (b) it hides the mass murderers' prosecutable war crimes behind technical euphemisms, like "collateral damage."]:

[4] Diane Christian's 6-6-06 Counterpunch essay, "Negatives: Torturers, Massacres And Denial" [Psychoanalyzes the U.S. government's attempts to fool us by either flatly denying, or cleverly rationalizing away, the torture they condone and the massacres their policies produce.]:

[5] Bruce Jackson's 6-5-06 Counterpunch essay, "Why Haditha Happened" [The White House and Pentagon are saying the Marines who committed the Haditha massacre were "inadequately trained." But the author is an ex-Marine who explains why that excuse is pure bovine excrement.]:

[6] Cindy Sheehan's 6-5-06 CD essay, "The Abominations Of War: From My Lai To Haditha" [A refreshingly sane analysis of the insane abominations of war. The Pentagon routinely dehumanizes once-wholesome kids, drops them into hellish occupations where some become frenzied berserkers, and then speciously claims it's an "aberration" when they commit mass murder.]:

[7] Ellen Knickmeyer's 6-5-06 Washington Post article, "Iraqis Accuse U.S. Marines Of Killing Innocent Civilian In April: Disabled Man's Family Disputes Troops' Story"

[8] Michael Duffy's 6-5-06 Time Magazine article, "The Shame Of Kilo Company" ["Sparked by a Time report published in March, a U.S. military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24 civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges, including murder. And new revelations suggest that superiors might have helped in the cover-up."]

[9] Mariam Karouny and Fredrik Dahl's 6-4-06 CD/Reuters article, "Iraq Rejects U.S. Probe Clearing Troops Of Killings" [The Iraqi government has announced that it rejects the Pentagon's exoneration of the U.S. troops who stand accused of having massacred 11 innocent civilians in Ishaqi, and that it will be conducting its own investigation into these alleged war crimes.]:

[10] Marie Cocco's 6-4-06 CD/Daily Camera essay, "Yet Another Cover-Up, Why Be Surprised?" ["The Marines, and those who shielded them, may well have suffered a 'total breakdown of morality and leadership' at Haditha. But that is because our country's leadership is suffering the very same breakdown."]

[11] Michael Portillo's 6-5-06 London Times Online essay, "Iraq Looks A Little More Like Vietnam Every Day" ["Vietnam ended with American helicopters plucking marines from the roof of the embassy in Saigon as the Vietcong overran the city. It is not impossible that one day the scene will be re-enacted in the green zone of Baghdad."]

[12] Chris Floyd's 6-5-06 Counterpunch essay, "Return To Ishaqi: The Pentagon's Shaky Self-Exoneration" ["It seems the Pentagon, that veritable fount of veracity, has probed itself for the alleged execution-style slaying of civilians in Ishaqi (reported here in March) and found that the operation -- which left 11 civilians dead, including five children under the age of five -- was in fact an exemplary feat of arms, strictly by the book." Explains why it would be foolish to accept the result of the Pentagon's self-investigation without independent corroboration. "(P)ut it this way: if you're ever charged with murder or bank fraud or dope-dealing or tax dodging, ask the cops if you can investigate yourself, and see what they say."]

[13] Robert Fisk's 6-3-06 CD/Seattle Post-Intelligencer essay, "The Way The Americans Like Their War" ["The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children, could these be just a few of the many? Does the handiwork of the United States' army of the slums go further? ... Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions. ... We mentally dress ourselves up as Galahads, yes as crusaders, and we tell those whose countries we invade that we are going to bring them democracy. I can't help but wonder today how many of the innocents slaughtered at Haditha took the opportunity to vote in the Iraqi elections -- before their 'liberators' murdered them?"]:

[14] Tom Regan's 6-2-06 Christian Science Monitor article, "Pentagon Investigates New Allegation Of Iraqi Civilian Massacre" [A BBC videotape of the US military's March raid in Ishaqi reportedly shows the bodies of 11 people - all of whom were innocent civilian noncombatants.]

[15] Richard Oppel's 6-2-06 CD/New York Times article, "Iraqi Accuses U.S. Of 'Daily' Attacks On Civilians": [Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki accused US troops of committing acts of violence against civilians every day, and added that many troops in the American-led coalition obviously "do not respect the Iraqi people." He said with understandable outrage: "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable!"]

[16] The Nation's 6-2-06 CD/TN editorial, "Why Haditha Matters" [Briefly summarizes the shameful moral implications of the Haditha Massacre. Among other things, it implicates our criminal leadership for having creating a sense of license, and a climate of impunity, among the troops. Concludes that the U.S. military's murderous atrocities in Haditha could turn out to be the war's low point, or a foreshadowing of things to come. In either case, the Iraq War is a moral catastrophe.]:

[17] Richard Gwyer's 6-2-06 CD/Toronto Star essay, "Haditha Signals Beginning Of End Of Iraq War" [Just like the My Lai Massacre in 1968 proved to be the tipping point in public opposition to the Vietnam War, so too will the Haditha Massacre prove to be the tipping point that turns public opinion irrevocably against the Iraq War.]:

[18] Eleanor Clift's 6-2-06 Newsweek article, "Out Of Control: How The Haditha Killings Could Haunt The GOP In The Midterm Elections" [Karen Hughes, the head the State Department's public-diplomacy effort, is bracing for another public-relations disaster -- reports that U.S. Marines allegedly shot 24 Iraqi unarmed civilian men, women and children in the town of Haditha.]

[19] Justin Raimondo's 6-2-06 AntiWar.com essay, "The Menaing Of Haditha: Murderous Depravity And Empire-Building Go Hand-In-Hand"

[20] Mickey Z's 6-2-06 Counterpunch essay, "Mass Murder As A PR Problem: The Haditha Massacre Was Inevitable": http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey06022006.html [21] Daniel Schorr's 6-2-06 Christian Science Monitor essay, "Haditha: A New Coud In The Fog Of War [A proven Iraqi massacre by U.S. Marines would add pressure to remove the troops.]:

[22] Molly Ivins' 6-1-06 CNN essay, "No Excuses This Time" ["So Haditha becomes another name at which we wince, along with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and My Lai. Tell you what - let's not use the 'stress of combat' excuse this time. According to the neighbors, the girls in the slain family of Younis Khafif - the ones who kept pleading in English: 'I am a friend. I am good." - were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1. What are they going to say - 'Under the stress of combat we thought the baby was 2?'"]

[23] Ruth Conniff's 6-1-06 CD/Progressive essay, "Haditha Means Time to End Iraq War" [Morally speaking, the US Marines' Haditha massacre and attempted cover-up is an even bigger scandal than the criminal acts of torture at Abu Ghraib. It's time to admit that this war was a terrible mistake. And it's time to put an end to this awful war. The entire exercise was morally bankrupt from the very outset.]

[24] Brian Cloughley's 6-1-06 Counterpunch essay, "War Crimes Start At The Top: Haditha And The Farrago Of Lies" [The Bush administration's policy of covering up of its own war crimes was summed up by former Marine and Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), who said: "It goes right up the chain of command. Who said 'We're not going to publicize this thing; we're not even going to investigate it'?"]

[25] Ted Rall's 6-1-06 CD/TR essay, "For The Iraqis, American Atrocities Are Old News" [The USA is a twilight zone in which morals-come-lately Bushite Americans are professing to be shocked that the US Marines would commit a massacre in Haditha, while the mainstream media is expressing much anguish about the Marines' anguish, but no anguish about the 24 murdered Iraqis and their families. Middle Easterners have been paying much closer attention, so they already knew that the American military shows no respect for the lives of Iraqi civilians, and that it has perpetrated innumerable atrocities in places like Fallujah.]

[26] Linda Heard's 6-1-06 Online Journal essay, "Shameful Reactions To Haditha 'Atrocity'" [In last week's column, I highlighted the massacre of innocent men, women and children, carried out by up to a dozen Marines in the Iraqi town of Haditha. In it, I quoted Representative John Murtha, a highly decorated ex-Marine, who is distressed at the unprovoked attack.]

[27] Kim Gamel's 5-31-06 AP/Chicago Tribune article, "U.S. Troops Kill Pregnant Woman in Iraq" [Reports on the US military's unjustified shooting of two civilian women at a checkpoint in Samara]

[28] Derrick Z. Jackson's 5-31-06 CD/Boston Globe essay, "From Hubris To Humility" [It should not surprise us that a few of these soldiers may have turned their hatred of being in Iraq into a door-to-door killing spree of the innocent.]:


[29] Chicago Tribune's 5-31-06 CT editorial, "Investigating Haditha" [It is critical, whatever the fallout for U.S. interests, that the U.S. military give a full accounting. ]:

[30] Boston Globe's 5-31-06 BG editorial, "Death in Haditha" ["The Pentagon needs to probe deeply to determine whether a cover-up of the Haditha killings extended beyond the battalion."]:

[31] Washington Post's 5-31-06 WP editorial, "What Happened in Haditha: The Response To A Reported Massacre By U.S. Troops Must Be Full Accountability" ["Though we don't yet know the details of the Marine investigation, there is no way to mitigate or excuse such despicable acts if they occurred, and hardly any way to alleviate the tremendous damage that will be done to U.S. honor in Iraq and around the world."]:

[32] Edward M. Gomez' 5-30-06 SF Gate essay, "Haditha Massacre: America's Allies Shocked, But No Longer Surprised" [Provides world media reactions to the U.S. military's Haditha Massacre, with helpful links to the German, French, Canadian and Scottish press.]:

[33] Ben Tanosborn's 5-29-06 Online Journal essay, "My Lai, Haditha And America's Whitewashers" ["It was 38 years ago that a platoon from Charlie Company's 11th Brigade, Americal Division, commanded by a young Army lieutenant, murdered hundreds of old men, women, and children in a small Vietnam village -- presumably with the tacit approval of military higher-ups. A memorial later erected there by the Vietnamese lists 504 names as victims of the massacre, ranging in ages from 1 to 82." Compares America's whitewashing responses to the My Lai and Haditha massacres.]:

[34] Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski's (USAF-Ret.) 5-27-06 Lew Rockwell essay, "What May Come Of The Haditha Massacre?" [Now that the Bush administration's cover-up has failed, they will only be blaming the soldiers on the ground for the Haditha Massacre of 24 innocent civilian noncombatants on 11-19-05. However, this heinous war crime was bound to happen when our war-addicted politicians and commanders irresponsibly committed these soldiers to a military occupation with no clear goal, no clear enemy, and no end in sight.]:

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY: In a very real sense, every illegal war of aggression is state-sponsored terrorism on a massive scale. Most of the victims of the Iraq War's reign of terror are women, children, the elderly, and other innocent civilian noncombatants. We've already learned that the U.S. military has been committing the slow massacre of civilians, poisoning our own troops, and contaminating future generations, through its global dispersal of radioactive dust from Depleted Uranium Munitions ("DUM"). When will we learn: (1) that even the best of intentions does not guarantee a good outcome, and frequently leads to a bad outcome, when we unleash the evil means and uncontrollable chaos of war; and (2) that violence only begets more violence, and warfare more wars?

Seven Marines and a Navy medical corpsman are being held in the brig at California's Camp Pendleton, and four other Marines have been confined to base in connection with the probe.

The source said murder charges are likely to be filed in the next few days.

The investigation is separate from two others involving an alleged massacre of 24 civilians at Haditha last November.

William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs who approved the new policy, said it was written to ensure that healthcare professionals play an appropriate role. The policy attempts to draw a clear distinction between medical personnel who care for the health of detainees and mental health professionals, called "behavioral science consultants," who assist interrogators.

Winkenwerder, in a conference call with reporters, said the "consultants" did not take part in interrogations. They make psychological assessments of prisoners, he said, but are not allowed to shape interrogations with their knowledge of a subject's phobias or medical vulnerabilities.

Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, said the military should prohibit psychologists or doctors from aiding in the questioning of detainees. "They are using their professional knowledge to hurt people," he said. "The bottom line is health professionals should not be involved in interrogations."

The guidelines are part of a policy directive for medical personnel that was originally due to be released with the Army Field Manual and another directive on the treatment of detainees.

But the Field Manual has been held up by objections from members of Congress, who are worried that it might not go far enough to ensure prisoners are treated humanely. The Times reported Monday that the Pentagon has decided to leave out a key part of the Geneva Convention that bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday sent a letter to President Bush, saying such an omission would "make our troops and our country less safe."

"Given the current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq," he wrote, "it is an especially bad time to send a signal to the world that we no longer abide by internationally accepted norms for the treatment of prisoners."

The medical directive released Tuesday also makes no mention of international law or treaties.

"It is outrageous that there is no reference to Geneva," said M. Gregg Bloche, a Georgetown University law professor and one of the first to disclose the work of the behavioral consultants in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The most controversial of the new rules for medical personnel are likely to be those governing the "behavioral science consultants," psychologists or other experts who advise interrogators.

The American Psychiatric Assn.'s guidelines prohibit its members from taking part in interrogations. Professional guidelines for psychologists are less clear.

The new policy notes that physicians, such as psychiatrists, are not ordinarily used as behavioral consultants, "but may be so assigned" when qualified psychologists are unavailable.

Critics have said the consultants give interrogators information that helps them to increase the discomfort, stress or ill-treatment of detainees, giving tacit approval that allows harsher treatment.

Under the guidelines, the consultants are permitted to "make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of detainees." They can also train military personnel on "safe and effective interrogation methods" and advise them on the "potential effects of cultural and ethnic characteristics of subjects."

The rules, however, bar them from "the use of physical or mental health information regarding any detainee in a manner that would result in inhumane treatment or not be in accordance with applicable law."

"These words speak to humane behavior," Winkenwerder said. "And if you have observed our personnel in action ... I can tell you they act humanely and they act with humane principle and they are ethical people."

He said the new rules consolidated existing policies and added new details. "They reaffirm what has been a tradition that goes back decades and decades and decades," he said.

Rubenstein, with Physicians for Human Rights, said anything short of a complete ban on the use of psychologists or physicians in interrogations would result in medical personnel helping interrogators use ever-tougher tactics.

"They have adopted the same policy and dressed it up in what purports to be safeguards," he said. "Once you get sucked into interrogations, the likelihood of violating ethical obligations and hurting people is high."

Many doctors and psychologists argue it is ethical to give classes on human behavior or other general instruction to interrogators. But giving advice on how to break an individual subject and make him or her talk crosses an ethical line, they say. The new rules allow such individualized advice, if the interrogators use lawful techniques.

Stephen Xenakis, a psychiatrist and former Army brigadier general in the medical corps, has criticized the use of doctors and psychologists in interrogations. He said he once supported the kind of wall the Pentagon is trying to create between caring for detainees and aiding in their interrogation.

But he now says such a distinction will be impossible. "You are always a healthcare provider," Xenakis said. "You can't be an interrogator in one job and a doctor in another."

The new guidelines may also tighten the use of medical records. At Guantanamo Bay, there was for a time no restriction on interrogators looking at medical records. The new directive does not restrict access to records but mandates that such disclosures are recorded.

The new rules also offer guidance on force-feeding. They say that medical personnel may assist in force-feeding detainees on a hunger strike "without the consent of the detainee to prevent death or serious harm." The directive says the treatment must be medically necessary.

The International Committee on the Red Cross prohibits force-feeding.

Xenakis argues that doctors should take steps, short of force-feeding, to try to keep patients alive, or persuade them to stop hunger strikes. But he said if patients were mentally competent, and rationally decide to starve themselves, medical personnel must let them do it.

"Patients have the right to exercise autonomy and starve themselves," he said.

Winkenwerder said the new directive adhered to the policy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons: to keep anyone under detention alive.

He said healthcare was provided "with the consent of the detainees," with the exception of those who are refusing nourishment. "We have a policy that is to preserve life," he said. "That policy is an ethical policy," he said.

"It is now clear -- although we are still far from having established the whole truth -- that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities," Marty said at a news conference in Paris.

The 67-page report specifically accused Poland and Romania of allowing the CIA to use their territory to transfer secret prisoners from plane to plane. At least 12 other European nations allowed refuel ing stops, "pickup points," or "staging centers" for controversial CIA undertakings, the report stated.

Using often colorful language, the report described CIA operatives "dressed in black like ninjas" hustling suspects on and off airplanes on missions spanning four continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America.
Pop-up GLOBE GRAPHIC: Secret CIA flights

Bangor, Maine, which is frequently used for US military flights, may have served as a refueling point for CIA planes headed out on rendition operations, according to the report. Other landing spots ranged from the Spanish resort island of Mallorca -- where American intelligence agents may have enjoyed R&R breaks as well as transferred captives -- to Kabul, Afghanistan, according to the report.

The Maine airport was listed as a CIA "stopover" point along with airports in Britain, Ireland, Italy, and Greece.

Germany, Spain, Cyprus, and Turkey were identified as "staging" grounds for clandestine operations.

The report focused on alleged Europe collusion with the CIA but also cites Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan as apparently colluding in extensive operations starting after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The United States has tacitly acknowledged transferring suspected terrorist suspects through "third countries" but has insisted it has always procured permission from governments. The Bush administration yesterday had no direct response to the report.

"There seem to be a lot of allegations [in the report] but no real facts behind it," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington, adding that cooperation between countries has saved lives in the war against terrorism.

The Council of Europe is a toothless entitity that, in Marty's words, can only "name and shame" nations it suspects of rights abuses.

The report specifically accused Poland and Romania of allowing US intelligence agencies to operate secret jails on their territory to question suspected terrorists spirited out of other countries. The aim of the clandestine operations was to avoid allowing detainees to set foot on American soil, which would would entitle them to all constitutional protections afforded any suspect.

Poland denied that CIA planes transporting terror suspects ever landed or dropped off prisoners in that country. In the past it has denied hosting secret detention or interrogation facilities.

"This is slander, and it's not based on facts," Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz told reporters in Warsaw, according to the Associated Press.

Marty conceded that he had little hard evidence of clandestine detention facilities and secret flights, accusing European governments of refusing to help human rights investigators establish facts.

"Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not yet available, a number of coherent and converging elements indicate that such secret detention centers did exist in Europe," Marty said in the report, which is based on a seven-month probe that relied heavily on accounts in The Washington Post and other news media about so-called "extraordinary renditions" and "dark prisons."
Pop-up GLOBE GRAPHIC: Secret CIA flights

Marty also used airport traffic-control records showing some 1,000 CIA flights crisscrossing Europe and statements by 17 individuals who say they were abducted by US intelligence operatives. The report said that such abductions occurred with cooperation or at least tacit permission by European spy agencies.

The European report slammed Britain's MI5 intelligence agency for helping the CIA in "abducting persons against which there is no evidence." It cited the case of two British residents, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, who human rights groups have claimed were snatched in the African nation of Gambia, transported to Afghanistan, then flown to the US facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with at least one refueling stop in Europe, apparently Bucharest, the Romanian capital.

Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, told Parliament the report contained "absolutely nothing new."

The Council of Europe report listed the following countries as having colluded with the United States in "unlawful [international] transfers" of people: Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Poland, and Romania.

A map released by the Council of Europe identified airports in Timisoara, Romania, and Szymany, Poland, as "detainee transfer/drop-off" points -- the site of alleged secret detention centers.

Marty's claims triggered a wave of angry denials but also accusations that governments are stonewalling attempts to confront Europe's role in the flights.

"This report exposes the myth that European governments had no knowledge of, or involvement in, rendition and secret detentions," said lawmaker Michael Moore, foreign affairs spokesman for Britain's second opposition party, the Liberal Democrats.

In the strongest allegations so far, Marty said evidence suggests planes linked to the CIA carrying terror suspects stopped in Romania and Poland and likely dropped off detainees there, backing up earlier news reports that identified the two countries as possible sites of clandestine detention centers.

Officials in Romania and Poland vigorously denied the accusations.

"This is slander and it's not based on any facts," Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Poland's prime minister, told reporters in Warsaw.

But Filip Ilkowski, leader of Poland's "Stop War" movement protesting the Iraq war, said the Polish government was trying to thwart European Union investigators.

"It is hard to say whether prisoners were dropped off here, but from what we know, U.S. planes landed in Poland outside the official channels. The government has done nothing to clarify the matter, it is doing everything to cover it up," Ilkowski said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair also denied the collusion allegations and said Marty's report contained no new evidence.

"I have to say, the Council of Europe report has absolutely nothing new in it," he told lawmakers.

There was no immediate U.S. reaction.

Marty, investigating the flights since November, said the 14 European nations _ along with some other countries including Iraq, Morocco and Afghanistan _ aided the movement of at least 17 detainees who said they had been abducted by U.S. agents and secretly transferred to detention centers around the world.

Some former detainees said they were transferred to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and others to alleged secret facilities in countries including Egypt and Jordan. Some said they were mistreated or tortured.

"I have chosen to adopt the metaphor of a global spider's web, a web that has been spun out incrementally over several years using tactics and techniques that had to be developed in response to new threats of war," Marty said.

In his investigation, Marty _ a former prosecutor _ relied mostly on flight logs provided by the European Union's air traffic agency, Eurocontrol, witness statements gathered from people who said they had been abducted by U.S. intelligence agents, and judicial and parliamentary inquiries in various countries.

He concluded that several countries let the CIA abduct their residents, while others allowed the agency to use their airspace or turned a blind eye to questionable foreign intelligence activities on their territory.

"European governments simply agreed not to want to see," Marty told journalists.

He listed 14 European countries _ Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Poland _ as being complicit in "unlawful interstate transfers" of people.

Some, including Sweden and Bosnia, already have acknowledged some involvement.

Marty put airports in Timisoara, Romania, and Szymany, Poland, in a "detainee transfer/drop-off point" category, together with eight airports outside Europe.

He said one plane arrived in Timisoara from Kabul, Afghanistan, on the night of Jan. 25, 2004, after picking up Khaled El-Masri, a German who said he had been abducted by foreign intelligence agents in Skopje, Macedonia, and taken to the Afghan capital.

The investigator said the plane stayed in Timisoara for 72 minutes before leaving for Spain.

"The most likely hypothesis of the purpose of this flight was to transport one or several detainees from Kabul to Romania," Marty said in the report, without elaborating.

But Dan Andrei, the head of Romania's Civil Aeronautic Agency, denied that the CIA operated the plane.

"The plane did not drop off or pick up any passengers and declared five passengers on board. We don't have any evidence that it was a CIA plane," he said.

Marty said he believed the Szymany airport in northeastern Poland was also used for a rendition flight in September 2003.

A parallel investigation by the European Parliament has said data show there have been more than 1,000 clandestine CIA flights stopping on European territory since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Officials said it was not clear if or how many detainees were on board.

"We're definitely not talking about hundreds of detainees, it likely is a much smaller number," Marty said.

Allegations that CIA agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers, including compounds in eastern Europe, were first reported in November by The Washington Post.

Clandestine prisons and secret flights via or from Europe to countries where suspects could face torture would breach the continent's human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Council of Europe has no power to punish countries for breaching the treaty other than terminating their membership in the organization. Based on irrefutable evidence, the European Union might be able to suspend the voting rights of a country found to have breached the convention.

"This would appear to be a rehash of the previous efforts by this group. I don't see any new solid facts in it. There seem to be a lot of allegations but no real facts behind it."

McCormack said that renditions "are an internationally recognized legal practice. (Venezuelan terrorist) Carlos the Jackal wouldn't be in jail today without the practice of rendition."

McCormack also decried the "tone in the report and some of the discussion that there's something inherently bad or illegal about intelligence activities."

Intelligence cooperation "between the United States and Europe and between the United States and other countries around the world saves lives in the war on terror," he said.

The report, drawn up by Swiss parliamentarian Dick Marty for the pan-European rights body, said European countries had colluded in or tolerated the transfer of prisoners for the CIA.

"It is now clear -- although we are still far from establishing the whole truth -- that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities. Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know," the report said.

"The United States ... actually created this reprehensible network. But we also believe to have established that it is only through the intentional or grossly negligent collusion of the European partners that this 'web' was able to spread also over Europe," it said.

Although it did not openly accuse Poland and Romania of housing CIA prisons, it said there was "a preponderance of indications" that secret detention centres were operated near aircraft landing points.

In Warsaw, Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz dismissed the allegations as "libel" with "no basis in fact," Poland's PAP news agency reported.

Poland has denied housing secret CIA prisons since allegations first surfaced in November that the US intelligence agency operated several detention centres around the world, including in new democracies in eastern Europe.

Poland's ex-president Aleksander Kwasniewski said shortly before he left office in December that CIA aircraft could have made stopovers in the country but strongly denied the US ran secret prisons there.

Romania said the accusations were "pure speculation" and slammed as unacceptable the "accusations based on 'indications'."

"Mr. Marty's report does not provide any proof of the presence of detention centres in Romania," Norica Nicolai, president of the parliamentary commission investigating alleged CIA flights to Romania, told AFP.

"There is no proof that the planes that landed in Romania belong to the CIA, or of any CIA prisons in this country," she added.

Belgium, meanwhile, urged Poland and Romania to lay their cards on the table and clear up the murky situation.

"There are serious indications which show that strange things have happened. Romania and Poland must clear this up -- that is the priority now," Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht was quoted by the Belga press agency as saying.

European Union foreign ministers would discuss the issue on Monday in Luxembourg, de Gucht said.

The Council of Europe report accused 14 European countries of collaborating with the CIA to transfer suspected terrorists to third countries or to US-run detention centres, a practice known as "extraordinary rendition".

Bosnia-Hercegovina, Britain, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, Sweden and Turkey were said to have been "responsible, at varying degrees... for violations of the rights of specific persons".

Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain "could be held responsible for collusion, active or passive", said the report, which blamed the United States for creating "this reprehensible network".

Greece did not deny that CIA flights transited via the country, but said it had not breached international aviation laws.

"Greece strictly abides by the laws, rules and international treaties on civil aviation for every aircraft arriving in or leaving the country," government spokesman Evangelos Antonaros told reporters.

A spokesman for the German government, Thomas Steg, said Berlin would withold comment on the report so as not to impede the work of the judiciary, which was hearing several cases cited in the report.

Spain "categorically" rejected the accusations, with a government spokesman in Madrid saying: "Spain has in no way, either actively or passively, taken part in operations to transfer prisoners".

British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed the report as containing "absolutely nothing new", echoing a comment by the Foreign Office.

But rights watchdog Amnesty International welcomed the report and repeated demands for the United States and Europe to halt "extraordinary renditions".

The London-based organisation said the report showed that so-called renditions were outside the law and "contrary to basic legal principles -- involving... 'disappearances', arbitrary detention, illegal transfers and torture or other ill-treatment".

The Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, which is a separate body from the European Union, was set up after World War II to promote democracy and human rights across the continent. All 25 EU countries are part of the 46-member organisation.

"I think that we're certainly disappointed at the tone and the content of it," he said.

Though the EU report criticized the CIA for detaining and transferring terror suspects through European countries, McCormack said that renditions and transfers of terror suspects to third countries are legal.

The report suggested that intelligence activities were inherently bad, but international intelligence cooperation is important and saves lives, he said.

White House press secretary Tony Snow did not comment on the report, but said that nations have practiced renditions for a very long time.

The EU report by Swiss investigator Dick Marty revealed that more than a dozen European countries colluded in a "global spider's web" of secret CIA prisons and transfers of terrorism suspects.

The report offered no direct proof, but said that many evidence shows that the CIA set up detention centers in Europe.