Wikileaks Releases Sensitive Guantanamo Manual 643
James Hardine writes "Wired is reporting that a never-before-seen military manual detailing the day-to-day operations of the U.S. military's Guantánamo Bay detention facility has been leaked to the web, via the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks.org, affording a rare inside glimpse into the institution where the United States has imprisoned hundreds of suspected terrorists since 2002. The 238-page document, "Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures," is dated March 28, 2003. The disclosure highlights the internet's usefulness to whistle-blowers in anonymously propagating documents the government and others would rather conceal. The Pentagon has been resisting — since October 2003 — a Freedom of Information Act request from the American Civil Liberties Union seeking the very same document. Anonymous open-government activists created Wikileaks in January, hoping to turn it into a clearinghouse for such disclosures. The site uses a Wikipedia-like system to enlist the public in authenticating and analyzing the documents it publishes. The Camp Delta document includes schematics of the camp, detailed checklists of what "comfort items" such as extra toilet paper can be given to detainees as rewards, six pages of instructions on how to process new detainees, instructions on how to psychologically manipulate prisoners, and rules for dealing with hunger strikes."
Try that again (Score:5, Informative)
Related article on the leak: "US violates chemical weapons convention" [wikileaks.org]
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:2, Informative)
document on wikileaks (Score:1, Informative)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure [wikileaks.org]
Re:document on wikileaks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, 'cause no one [iraqbodycount.org] is dying [antiwar.com] over there. Especially not now [wikipedia.org].
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
By being unclassified, the release of this material is officially not "material that would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available." See the wiki page on US classification levels- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information#Classification_levels [wikipedia.org]
If it's not classified, it's not a threat to national security. Given the amount of useless info the Bush administration has classified (White house emails, papers documents and political strategies), one could easily make the case that even classification no longer implies the threat of danger to national security for some items.
Having held a clearance, one requiring special background investigation, in the military for 8 years, I will say that it's really important to protect some information. It's just as important to determine what information must have protection, and what information doesn't require it. What's interesting in this matter is that the document in question is marked Unclassified/For Official Use Only(U/FOUO). Check out this link http://www.ioss.gov/WhatDoesFOUOMean.html [ioss.gov] for an explanation. To summarize, U/FOUO simply means that the material is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, this is material not intended to be available to the public, but not a threat to national security. That's simple enough to understand. Now that it has been released to the public, we can access whether the U/FOUO rating was justified. In general, operating instructions for military installations are not for public consumption, simply due to operational security concerns. On the other hand, this document relates to allegations concerning illegal behavior by members of the US Armed services, and their commanders, much in the same manner as those prosecuted for their actions at Abu Garib.
So here's the question- does the normal concern for operations security override the need to expose and investigate potential illegal activities? One could argue either way- but having seen the document in question, this looks more like a case of "let's not let the light of day into our questionable activities", rather than a genuine need to protect sensitive information.
No reasonable person would claim that this is a case of national security, as not even the government considers this material relevant to national security, but simply asks that the material be treated as such. Actually, that's fairly useful view into the government mind- "We have this information here, and it's vital to national security, so we will classify it and ask that all who handle it treat it that way. OK, so now we have this other information, which isn't vital to national security, but we're going to ask all who handle it to treat it that way too." It takes a certain mindset to think that way, and I don't have it.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not "a leftie". I'm someone who values human life. I hope that this definition of some of my values does not offend your belief system.
If you define your side as the american soldiers versus iraqi civilians, then we have nothing in common and I have nothing more to say to you.
That Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
- July 24, 2004 -- Tashkent -- Islamic Jihad Group of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy
- December 6, 2004 -- Jeddah -- al-Qaeda gunmen attack U.S. consulate
- March 2, 2006 -- Karachi -- Car bomb explodes outside Embassy
- March 3, 2006 -- Chapel Hill, NC -- Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drives an SUV onto a crowded part of UNC campus.
- September 12, 2006 -- Damascus -- Gunmen raid US Embassy
- August 30, 2006 -- San Fancisco Bay Area -- An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV.
US Embassies are considered US territory.From the Report: (Score:4, Informative)
Detainees must be treated humanely
Chapter 1 Section 1-8 Statement (a):
Detainees are to be treated in spirit of Geneva Convention
Chapter 16 essentially outlines how to respect the religious tenets of the Islam
NO WHERE in the report is the word torture mentioned...
INTERESTINGLY, the CINC is only mentioned once; that the implentation of the SOP should follow the CINCs AND Geneva Conventions intentions
Basically, this document says follow international law and respect the detainees. This is not going to be a watershed or bring about the impeachment of the President. Not much to speak of really. That being said, it is an illegal prison and needs to be shut down and a new way of dealing with these people devised.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
It includes lock combinations... (Score:3, Informative)
(a) Camp Delta CO will have one of the Administrative NCOs, working in Camp-1, using whatever means available (i.e. golf cart, HMMWV) move to the power substation adjacent to the water tanks by Camp Bulkeley. Admin NCO will carry a SABRE radio.
(b) Upon arrival will enter the gate by entering the number (1998) in the combination lock.
(c) Proceed to the junction box with the number (7012-83) Breaker Box and open the box. The number for the lock on the breaker box is (224).
I love it.
For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
Our fax cover sheets say that even if all that follows is a damned pizza order.
Re:That Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Informative)
Every US soldier who sent a prisoner to Abu Grahib is guilty of war crimes under that precedent. We can only hope that we never loose a war and are actually put in front a tribunal. I bet Bush's biggest nightmare is a successor who signs the international war crimes tribunal treaty, and turns him over to The Hague. For irony, they could put him in Milosevic's cell.
Re:That Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Informative)
God fucking learn something about Abu Ghraib. (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know jack shit about Abu Ghraib. Men were beaten with table legs, and raped up the ass with broomsticks and chemical lights. Women were raped by guards. A man had his legs held open while an officer repeatedly kicked him in the crotch. You think it was pathetic because you don't know a damn thing about it. You only saw a couple photos of a guy with a hood on his head and thought "Oh that's nothing" and moved on with your life, even though you were told that there were even more pictures that were, and I quote, "much worse". Guess what? You bought into the media spin.
Do you think this guy [sebimeyer.com] was humilitated to death you dipshit?
A good place to start with actually informing yourself would be to google up the Taguba Report for a beginning of what went on.
Skimming the rest of your post, you make some decent points, I just get really pissed when people blow off Abu Ghraib because they think it's all just barking dogs and panties-hats. Well you're wrong. It was honest-to-god torture. People died from it. You don't die from dog barks.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you didn't spend more than about a minute on the front page of the website? The point of that leak was that the US has chemical weapons in Iraq. Maybe they even used them... say it ain't so!
Re:This is a torture manual? (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention that the murder of Pim Fortuyn had absolutely nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, he was murdered by Volkert van der Graaf, just a crazy white guy. I know full well who you actually meant, but this factual error of yours just goes to show you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Re:This is a torture manual? (Score:1, Informative)
People were raped and tortured and murdered. Children being sodimized and recorded as it is happening. Men having thier penis tied to ropes and being dragged along the floor by the rope while naked. And the US Administration tried to hide it.
HOW DARE YOU TRY TO TRIVIALIZE IT
No country should ever have to do that to a prisoner. It is people like you that are wrong with America.
And any other excuse is moot. Take Gitmo for example. 100's of people were detained there for 2+ years, tortured and no access to thier families. Their crime? Being in the wrong place and picked up by the Northern Alliance and handed in for a $5K reward for being alleged taliban.
People lost years of their life, their family lost, their homes and jobs gone. Some freed were even thrown into the wrong country.
You should be ashamed of yourself to ever suggest that torture is justified under any condition.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:3, Informative)
The truth is there, you just don't want to see it.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:2, Informative)
That's not entirely true. The last poll done that I've seen that actually asked Iraqis this very question (available from the Brookings Institute [brookings.edu]) was carried out in March 2007, and showed that a majority (53%) believed the security situation would improve if US troops left. 26% said it would get worse, the rest said they didn't know.
In fact, polls in Iraq have consistently shown this attitude for quite some time.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:3, Informative)
Uh-huh. And the thinking that the people are going to be eternally grateful that we invaded and occupied their country... That Iraq was basically just Ohio with a cruel dictator and everyone would smile and line up to shop at Walmart once he was gone... That Iraqis would see our actions through the same rose-tinted glasses that we do... That any government formed under occupation would be seen as legitimate... That they could follow our example of "freedom embracing government" when the occupation shuts down newspapers and indefinitely imprisons people without charge? These are the thoughts of an intelligent person?
Ha, as if. Unintelligent is not knowing a damn thing about the situation in the country you're invading, and then acting surprised and
blaming the locals when your delusional fantasy of what should happen doesn't come true.
But, it turned out not to be the case. Apparently they are pretty much all fscked in the head over there....can't get past racial/religious differences (and for God's sake how can even they tell the difference between suni and shiite?, they really do all look like one people on tv)....so, they constantly bicker and have apparently NO leaders in the group that the country can rally around.
Did you know that under Saddam, and despite his favoritism, Sunnis and Shiites lived together, worked together, even got married and raised families together, without any problems? Did you know that it is only within the last two years, in particular since Feb 2006's bombing of the Shiite mosque that sectarian killing has become rampant? Did you know that it is only since that time that people have been afraid to be the minority in their neighborhood and thus moved and segregated neighborhoods? And even then, Sunnis and Shiites would peacefully exchange deeds to their homes in order to keep both their families safe? Did you know that our oh-so-intelligent idea to fix this was to build walls and even further isolate the two groups?
It has become a convenient refrain for people to act as though the sectarian reprisal killings have been a constant feature of Iraq and that the sectarian violence was unavoidable. This is truly ignorant, and just a way to cover up for the fact that the U.S. dropped the ball on securing the peace and gave al Qaeda an opportunity to create chaos in Iraq.
If you truly think this is something unique to these unintelligent people... Imagine what would happen if, today, someone blew up a major Catholic church in Ulster. Clearly peace is possible in Ireland... but something like that could set off the violence again.
Given this, I really don't hold up much hope for them to get their act together no matter how long we stay and support them. I think at some point, we're gonna have to withdraw...step back, throw a couple of knives in the center....and then, after it is over with...we just have to deal with the 'winner'....
Certainly when we withdraw the flimsy edifice we've constructed will crumble. Certainly given the current situation -- a situation unlikely to change any time soon -- the results will not be pretty. This is all true. Your big mistake is thinking this was all inevitable. If we had gone into the situation realistically, instead of full of ourselves and fanciful lies of how great we are, then the situation might be dramatically better.
It takes a lot of balls to look at this invasion and say that Iraqis are dumb. Sadly, that seems to be all we've got left.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for playing, please try again.
Re:God fucking learn something about Abu Ghraib. (Score:1, Informative)
Hmmmm. Maybe it's not even a corpse. And, even if so, all I see is a photograph at an instant in time. Where is the evidence that this supposed death (again all we see is a supposed body) actually killed in the prison? And, even if it did, that it was the result of torture. Morgues (probably even makeshift ones in a prison) get bodies from all manner of places from all manner of deaths. So, sorry you have NO CASE. In short, you're the one full of it.
Re:God fucking learn something about Abu Ghraib. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh fine, I'm feeling generous, and will put slightly more effort into educating you than you would ever spend educating yourself.
The man's name was Manadel al-Jamadi [wikipedia.org], and yes, he was dead when the photo was taken. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was a blood clot from trauma.
I'm sure you'll make some argument from ignorance about possible explanations (as in, you don't know that he wasn't flown in from Turkey already dead, so maybe that's what happened!). Try actually reading about some facts that resulted from investigating his death. That's what, you know, people who want to know things do. Trolls like to wallow in ignorance. Have fun picking.