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."
Prosecute them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
We've spent about half a trillion dollars on this 'war', and we have nothing to show for it except negative opinions from our allies, and a show of weakening ourselves in a vicious cycle to our enemies.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Funny)
But there have been no more terrorist attacks on the US during that time. I know it's hard to prove that it's because we went to war, but it's just as hard to prove that it is not. The economy is better, the military is stronger and the world respects our word (all of this in contrast to the Clinton administration).
I know all this truth offends your liberal bias, but it's still truth even if you don't like it.
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.Um, well, in actual point of fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
There were eight years between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11. How many years has it been since 9/11/2001? Oh, right, just over six. We might actually have some evidence that the current policies are working if we were to go, say, 1.5 times as long between al-Qaeda terrorist incidents on U.S. soil, to allow for statistical variation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But there have been no more terrorist attacks on the US during that time.
There haven't been any fatal ocelot attacks in the US since we invaded Iraq, too.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
We can apply your depth of reasoning to anything that's happened between 9/11 and today, and it's all equally valid. Let's have fun with it:
You can't really prove these things. But then again, you can't really disprove them, so it's about time the liberals finally accepted that they're all true.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the USA. Clearly not.
Our economy is in the tank right now; the US dollar is dropping like a rock relative to other foreign currency. Hell, the USD is worth less than 1 CAD for the first time I can remember. We're so deep in debt to other countries that my grandkid's grandkids will probably still be paying it off, all to fund this retarded "war". At the end of the Clinton administration, we had not only a balanced budget, but a yearly surpluss that could (in theory, though I guess I'm not naieve enough to believe it would ever happen) be used to pay down our debt. That's long gone. And you may not have heard, but millions of people just lost their houses because they couldn't afford their mortgage payments.
Our military is stretched so thin we couldn't fend off an invasion from Bermuda, let alone an actual serious military threat. And our government knows it, so much so that they're coddling North Korea and Iran, two countries that are infinitely more dangerous a threat to us than Iraq could ever have been if Saddam had even wanted to.
And the rest of the world hates us. Not that this is new, but our "word" doesn't mean dick to anyone but us after that whole WMD/uranium/etc. fiasco.
--Mike
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I'm going to step out on a limb here and be political. In the last 5 years there have been around 200,000 deaths due to automobile accidents. We do not see the national guard patrolling the nation's streets and detaining speeders and unsafe drivers. We do not send drunk drivers to Guantanamo. These deaths are not a national security issue apparently.
The American Cancer Society estimates that about 1,500 Americans will die of ca
Re: (Score:2)
From the document itself:
Hmm.... ooops ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for playing, please try again.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
+ No weapons of Mass Destruction ever found
+ No realistic plan at all to rebuild Iraq
+ More Iraqi deaths since occupation than under Saddam
+ Kurdish terrorists now attacking Turkey
+ The creation of huge Iraq sized terrorist training camp
+ American and UK forces too tied up in Iraq to effectively deal with problems in Afghanistan
+ American troops seen as evil due to their behaviour running various prisons
+ Trillions of dollars wasted to no good effect
+ Thousands of American deaths and countless more severely injured
+ Iraq poised for a civil war the second the US pulls out
+ Iran and other enemies of freedom reaping the benefits of an overstretched US military
+ Constantly rising oil prices
- Females were attending school anyway, perhaps you were thinking of Afghanistan ?
- Mass graves are still being filled from the daily death toll of suicide bombs and terrorist attacks
Re:MODERATION ABUSE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, so fucking what if we (the US) are able to open a few schools? If the kids die on their way to the schools because of suicide car bombers, then the whole open schools argument is moot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the people of Iraq, a win would be to see the Americans and their allies leave - they're doing nothing but creating instability and turning sympathy into hatred by propping up corrupt dictators throughout the region (Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, and in Iraq Chalibi and now Nouri al-Maliki). The US lost the peace when it installed a puppet government and disbanded the army.
For the US, the only way to 'win' now is not to play. The alternative is drawn-out civil war and eventual withdrawal when the p
Victory at any price? (Score:4, Insightful)
If gulags like Guantanamo Bay are required in order to win, is victory worth it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think trouble is...we all overestimated the intelligence and abilities of the American people. Most people, I guess, figured once they were rid of <president>, that they'd jump at the chance to unite, and form a rational, somewhat freedom enbracing government. I mean, considering the dictatorship they'd endured, you'd think, eh?
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 Democrat and Republican?, 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.
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'....
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh that is rich. You overestimated your own intelligence. Effectively the US decided on what they wanted to find in Iraq and wrote intel to match.
Oh yeah, the Iraqis are going to love the Americans because the bombs the Americans have been dropping on them were nice bombs. Oh and the sancations were good sanctions.
Do you have a learning disability?
Re: (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 ever
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So more than 650 THOUSAND (in the first three years of occupation) iraqi civilian deaths are not filling them?
According to the surveys Saddam's Iraq was safety paradise to live in, compared to the civil war that is going on in the country as a DIRECT RESULT of the american invasion on the country. (Side note: You (in a general sense), are racist when you talk about the death of a few thousand american soldiers, but neglect to mention or even less
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for proving Stalin's point. One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic. I love how you used the word "only" next to eighty thousand deaths.
Is it impossible for conservatives to engage in a debate about anything without insulting people that disagree with them? I had some choice words in my other reply [slashdot.org] but I edited them out in the interest of a productive debate.
Playing the race card was a stupid move on his part. It's not racism to want our side to win. It's not racism to fail to point out civilian deaths on the other side. At worst it's short-sided.
I disagree with the war but if you could present me with an actual plan to win it I'd be behind you 100%. Unfortunately I don't see a plan to win it and staying there for the sake of not admitting defeat is costing us billions in treasure and the lives of our troops. Regardless of why we invaded, regardless of what mistakes were made and what was done right, it's basically a civil war now. Why the hell are we still involved? Would we have tolerated somebody else intervening during our own Civil War?
There you go again, hurling insults and making unfounded accusations. Way to elevate the debate. Are you a Congressman or Senator by any chance?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, if talking about winning, in context of a war, that usually presupposes an enemy that can be objectively defeated
I agree. And by that definition I don't think the war in Iraq can be won. I've said as much in other posts.
not an expression like terrorism or some such
Actually, terrorism could be defeated, but not by force of arms. The way you defeat (Islamic) terrorism is by winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim World and addressing their legitimate gripes.
This is not what happens in the media, is it? You don't treat iraqi civilian lives with the same respect and importance as you treat the lives of the american soldiers. What does this tell me?
Uhh, you see a hidden agenda in this? It tells me that people care more about local events that matter to them (the death of a solider from small town USA matters to the people in that town) t
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the times the question is "why did so many of our troops lost their lives in Iraq?" instead of "why did so many civilians lost their lives in Iraq and how could we let that happen?".
*shrug*, civilians die during war. It sucks, but that's the reality. How would you suggest fighting insurgents that blend into the population without having civilian injuries or deaths?
See, this is the problem. The media does pay attention to what's going on in Iraq. But in the order of importance the american troops in Iraq get ranked above pretty much everything else
Because that's what Americans care about.
It seems like a tautology, but the reason you talk about the death and well-being of american troops much more than the death and well-being of iraqi civilians is because you consider americans more important
From my standpoint, they are more important. And I'm not trolling here (though I'll get modded down anyway). You are talking about American media. What do you think they are going to focus on? Do I have legitimate gripe that the Arab media is focusing too much on the c
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.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because whatever talking head you listen to said so doesn't make it true. The Lancet Medical Journal in which the survey was published is a highly respected peer-reviewed journal. It's going to take more to discredit the study than your sincere wish that it wasn't true.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Interesting)
A lie of omission -- ie, by deliberately censoring and leaving out intelligence that contradicts your interpretation -- is still a lie.
If scientists had several studies showing that there was a strong possibility of particles smaller than atoms, and deliberately coverd up those studies and experiments so that they could say the atom was the smallest particle as they fervently believe, then yes, it would be a lie.
What you seem to be confused about is whether a lie has to be intentional. It may well be that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc all fervently believed that their interpretation was correct and that contrary information was not reliable. They may have sincerely believed they were "eliminating confusion", but ultimately they and their delegates made the decision to only tell one side of the story, and deny that a different interpretation even existed. That's a lie, that's conscious, purposeful deception so that you can get what you want.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, this will sound cold, but so what? Last time I checked we had a military to protect the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic", not to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. And if our intention was that noble, then why haven't we intervened in any of the African genocides?
That would make a better point in an argument about Afghanistan and not Iraq as it's my understanding that women were treated fairly well (by the standards of the Arab world) in Iraq. In any case, why the hell is it up to us to impose our moral viewpoint on other cultures?
And exactly how were the rape rooms a threat to our national security?
Sounds like that's a problem for the Israelis. How are Palestinian suicide bombers a threat to the United States, again?
And they were a threat to the United States, why?
Sorry, but this is where I lose my cool. STOP FUCKING TRYING TO LINK IRAQ TO 9/11 AND al-Qaeda. He was captured in Pakistan. What the fuck does that have to do with the Iraq war?
And he did what to the United States, exactly?
And he was a threat to us (prior to the invasion), how exactly?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into this theory of an interventionist foreign policy. Iraq posed zero threat to the United States. You can't even use the argument that everybody thought he had WMDs, because he allowed the inspectors back in prior to the war and they would have eventually discovered that he didn't. There was no reason for us not to give them time to do their work unless we already decided to invade before Saddam agreed to allow them back in.
Beyond that, ever stop to think about what we could have done with the troops in Iraq if we had deployed them to Afghanistan? Perhaps we could have used our own forces during Tora Bora instead of outsourcing the job to the local strongmen? Perhaps our own forces would have managed to capture Bin Ladin instead of letting him slip away?
Funny how the defenders of the Iraq war are so quick to forget about Bush's "dead or alive" promise. I want the motherfucker that killed three thousand American civilians in cold blood. I could have given two shits about Saddam.
Look, another person throwing the word "liberal" out there, as if it should be some sort of insult. *sigh*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, they are fed up with this, so they keep dreaming of the day where they will actually be able to harm you in some way. Some day, it happens. Then, you feel threatened and harm them some more, because in your group of cool kids, you can't let that stand.
Now that we are done with the analogy stupidity, think of this: your failure to see
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The truth is there, you just don't want to see it.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, if the Government wants to hide stuff, its "national security." If the Government also wants to illegally wiretap everybody, its "national security." If the Government wants to send you to Syria to be tortured or lock you up for years with no evidence, its "national security."
But if you question the Government, you're a threat to "national security."
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are the comment had a lot to do with how the current government says that extra surveillance on Americans is necessary to fight terrorism, and that we should trust them to not misuse the information they get. He's just using their own flawed argument against them.
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.
For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
Our fax cover sheets say that even if all that follows is a damned pizza order.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Funny)
That Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:5, Funny)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, when I went to Wikileaks, I found the entire order of battle and equipment register for all of our forces in Iraq. What exactly was the motivation for leaking that and what higher purpose was served?
There's a moral difference between releasing a document related to human rights (which are obviously being abused at Gitmo) and releasing a document that serves no useful purpose other then giving somebody a complete picture of our forces in Iraq. Leave it to the right-wing trolls on /. to ignore the difference. I applaud them for releasing this document but question the motivation behind the other one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but *no one* deserves to be raped, and the very idea of using such a thing as punishment is disgusting and abhorent. But, I would like to believe you didn't actually intend to advocate such a thing.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, first off, no, I don't have fucking Office Space memorized. I have better things to do with my time than memorize lines from shitty movies.
Second off, whether you meant it or not, there *are* those who think that prison rape is perfectly fine, and I'm fucking sick of people tacitly condoning it by casually referring to "pound me in the ass" prisons, as if it's something justifiable, or in this case, funny. It's not. Find another goddamned joke. You're part of the fucking problem, whether you realize it or not.
How finding prison rape objectionable equates to "being such a politically correct left-wing flower child", I'll never know. I find that shit offensive, and frankly, you should too.
You have completely glossed over/missed the point of my post in favor of picking on a specific line that happens to be quite popular on
Actually, no, I misunderstood because I don't have that god damned movie memorized. In fact, for all the times I've seen that statement, this is first time (and I've been here a long time) that it's been pointed out that it is, in fact, a movie quote.
Besides, if I said "she should be sent to a prison and raped repeatedly", would you find that funny (well, you might, but perhaps that's the problem)? I doubt it. But, apparently a change of phrasing makes all the difference...
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
That phrase is not at all clear.
For example, plenty of people consider Jane Fonda being photographed at AA installations to be propaganda for the enemy and therefore aid and comfort to the enemy.
So aside from ill-defined terms like proaganda, what exactly was wrong with what she did? I think the argument is that by highlighting the very real threat of AA-fire that she was intimidating our soldiers and thus diminishing the effectiveness of our military. Am I right that this is the heart of the argument? (i don't know the details of her case. I am assuming that the AA installations DID exist and that she wasn't making shit up so please bear with me as i mis-use her as a case-study)
If so, then does not the same argument apply to people in the US who try to keep kids from enlisting by telling them about IEDs and the allied death-toll in Iraq?
Or, is it all about trying to pursuade our active-duty personel that a war is wrong/illegal.
You can try to pursuade the general public/gvt but not soldiers? Is THAT the problem with fonda's AA photos? There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made there.
A problem arises with the real-world application of that sort of distiction because of the availablility of Internet and other media to our soldiers. If I KNOW that soldiers will read my blog/youtube/whatever would it be wrong to post an argument so pursuasive that it might induce some soldiers to flee or go awol for moral/religious reasons?
If we are the invaders then pursuading our government to withdraw our forces is literally aid and comfort to the enemy is it not? They would certainly be aided and comforted by that.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if what they're saying is true.
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people would disagree. The purpose of punishment is to prevent re-offending, deter others from offending, and if possible to make reparation to the victim. Rape, torture and mutilation do not serve any purposes other than petty vengeance and spreading fear, and if you're the kind of person who thinks they can be justified you might be right at home working for those Big Names you mentioned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Iraqi resistance's manpower and firepower are utterly dwarfed by that of their enemy, which happens to be a "coalition" of the World's current superpowers. Whining about this particular leak is like booing Robin Hood's valiant efforts to even the financial playing field.
One "higher purpose served" is that those men and women fighting to keep their country under their own control now have a better idea of what they're facing.
I'm sorry, but you have completely missed the point.
For starters, I was asking what the motivation was for the leaker himself.
Beyond that, there is no "Iraqi resistance" as conventionally imagined. Saying as such implies that the whole Iraq War boils down to our occupational forces being attacked by an armed guerrilla movement.
Most of the armed groups of "resistance fighters" are too busy killing each other or members of the other sect to focus on attacking American troops. Some of them have even
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
We talk about positions of power being abused by governments and corporations. Take, for example, patent trolls abusing the patents system. The general consensus is that if a law can be abused, then it will be.
There is no law more ripe for abuse than the Official Secrets Act (or your country's equivalent).
Governments in democratic countries are legitimised by elections. The people of the country make a decision on who should represent them in parliament, where decisions are made on the running of the country. But such decisions are only valid if they are informed decisions, i.e. you should know how your representative is going to vote in parliament, and what actions they will take should they form a government. If your decision is uninformed, your representative cannot truly represent you.
When governments start to hide their actions behind the Official Secrets Act, your decision ceases to become informed, and the government can no longer be seen as democratic.
If you describe yourself as a patriot, are you patriotic towards your government or towards the people of your country? There is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate?
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:5, Insightful)
The justice system is a mockery of its own title. Where is the justice for the illegally detained? It is morally unconscionable to believe we have the authority to exert our power against the people of the world in the ways we are. The tacit approval of torture by the government is a key indicator of how far from grace we have fallen.
There are mountains of evidence and personal testimonies from people who have been unjustly caught up in this whole debacle in which we are involved. Yet people like you still ignore the pleas for help and evidence of the destruction of the core principles upon which America was founded. I equate your viewpoint to that of creationists. You live in a world of self delusion which spawns further ignorance. That ignorance is exploited by the people who are causing this catastrophe as they invoke your name as the people who "support" their actions, justifying these actions as if they were approved by the sincere majority of Americans.
I'm sure you are an intelligent and thoughtful individual, but you need to open your eyes to the truth of how the war on terrorism and the drug war (by the way these are actually one and the same) are tearing apart not only America, but the world as a whole.
Two wrongs != one right (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservative/Liberal...Both sides are drinking the coolaid. There is nothing to be gained by just playing the label game over and over. If I say "I like guns, the death penalty, and free trade" I'm a Bushie who loves the war and eats Iraqi babies for breakfast. If I say, "I believe in social services, universal healthcare, and the right to an abortion"
Re:Prosecute them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if you folks would stop squabbling with each other, issues would actually be resolved and we wouldn't be as fucked as we are. Fighting amongst ourselves solves NOTHING. All it does is make us look like a child throwing a tantrum. The two party system as it exists today (along with the lines of division it creates amongst the citizens of the US) is the root of all of our problems.
Link to actual Wikileak articles (Score:3, Interesting)
Related article on the leak: "US violates chemical weapons convention" [wikileaks.org]
Try that again (Score:5, Informative)
Related article on the leak: "US violates chemical weapons convention" [wikileaks.org]
Chemicals? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya see, chemical training is required yearly. That means ya gotta have CS. Generally, you get a small cinder block house, put your people in it, pop the grenade and then let em scramble for their masks. I have personally been exposed to CS many times, having gone thru Nuclear-Biological-Chemical (NBC) training before the first Gulf war.
The 'people' we are fighting in Iraq can and will use any weapon or tactic. You can't fault us for training our 'people to prepare for them.
You know something? (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what the ideological slant you may take, I strongly suspect that the truth is going to be a lot more mundane - again, assuming this thing is not a fabrication in either one direction or the other.
(speakin' of which, how do you tell for certain that it's not just a fabrication, either for or against? It's something I've always wondered when it comes to public wikis - unless you can verify who submitted it --or it can be independently verified-- you'll never be quite sure of its veracity.)
Re:You know something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem inherent in the wiki-mindset...then again, who's to say anything released by any corporate news agency is any better (maybe even worse)? Fact-checking and verification is a pretty complex problem that, in the end, will always break down to faith in one party or another.
Precisely. That's why the wiki model is inherently superior.
Because, as you say, fact checking in any complex article on anything will almost certainly have broken down at some point. In a newspaper, a TV piece, or a normal encyclopedia, I have no way of seeing the evolution of the piece, and the discussions behind it; I have to blindly trust its accuracy in cases where I don't actively know I'm wrong.
Wikis at least give you extra information to base that judgement on. You still have to make that judgement
Re:You know something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it look real? Does it seem real enough and not fake?
If it does, then you start asking around. Maybe you could get someone who used to work there to confirm it (possibly anonymously). You can find ways to get it confirmed. And once you have a very good basis to believe it (insert Dan Rather joke here)... then you ask for a statement on it from the Pentagon.
If they confirm it, it's real. If they deny it you ask for some kind of proof. They can either provide it proving it's false, or they can't. If they can't prove it's false but you can good sources that agree it was real... then you have something you can write about.
That's how I see it at least. There are enough people you could find something like this out. Everything from asking former generals and analysts on if the formatting and style and such are correct, to asking people to confirm the document it's self.
Re:You know something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sure of that. It is a manual after all. It may reveal something about the nature of how detainees are treated, and it may even include things that walk that (apparently) narrow line between "aggressive interrogation" and "torture".
The problem is the things that aren't in the manual, but that they do anyway on "high value targets" because of pressure to get results. I don't think there's a manual that says wrap a guy up in a carpet and sit on him until he almost -- or in some cases fatally -- asphyxiates, but that's basically what happened under CIA interrogators in Afghanistan.
That's much more difficult to discover. We only have hints -- there are "secret" CIA prisons around the world, but damned if we know what goes on there. In most cases, it probably is boring and mundane.
(speakin' of which, how do you tell for certain that it's not just a fabrication, either for or against? It's something I've always wondered when it comes to public wikis - unless you can verify who submitted it --or it can be independently verified-- you'll never be quite sure of its veracity.)
How can you ever tell that a leaked document is the actual document? I fully agree the problem of trust is ten times worse with a wiki. The best way to verify a leak in any case though is to hope that someone who didn't want the document to leak will somehow verify it. For example, how do we know that the documents at xenu.net are really the Scientology secret teachings? Well, because the Church O' Elron sued the owner for copyright infringment. What about leaked copies of Iraq progress reports? Well, the Admin started putting spin control on the contents, not it's authenticity.
It's not reliable, but option B is to pretty much go investigate yourself and get a copy of the document yourself, in which case, why should anyone believe you if you post it on wikileaks?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RE: (Score:3, Funny)
After all... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Prediction: Anti-leak software (Score:3, Interesting)
Given:
1. Effective DRM is impossible.
2. By definition, there is no such thing as DRM against printed documents.
I reckon the next big thing will be some sort of software which puts the fear of God into those who may wish to leak documents - by making the leaker identifiable. Specifically, watermarking them. Where two spellings of a word are equally acceptable, use one in the version sent to person A and another in the version sent to person B. Change the spacing slightly. Tweak letter shapes here and there.
Of course, then you get anti-anti-leak. Rather than publish the original document, you publish an OCR'd version.... but DeCSS hasn't stopped DVDs being shipped with CSS encryption, and it hasn't dissuaded the likes of Macrovision.
Schematics?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah this just happens to be a prison but how are you going to feel when someone releases the schematics to the air conditioning system at jrandom fort in your town and proceeds to gas and entire base of people?
I'm as big an opponent of fearmongering as there is. I hate the war on "terrorism" but for god's sake people, have some common sense.
Extra TP as an award (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, they apparently put him in charge.
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.
And we thought that only communists did that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many times over the years when I'd talk with people about his experiences, they would reassure me that such a thing wouldn't happen in a healthy constitutional democracy like the US. The cruelty and Kafkaesque behavior of his captors was relegated to the sickness of communism to be sure.
At some point long ago I realized that wasn't the case, and that we were very much capable of similar evils. Some people wouldn't agree with me, but here we have the plain as day proof.
I'm sure a percentage of the people reading this post think "who cares if they're mistreating suspected terrorists?". To each of you that feel that way, I would say this: if we had this conversation about my grandfather and communism before 9/11, or perhaps if you read his book, you'd have condemned his captors to hell for being so awful.
I love this country dearly but I'm ashamed of much of what we're doing right now.
Also: if the manual reads to you as being "not so bad" remember that it is very different when you're on the other side of it. And remember that it's just a manual: the real day to day life there is bound to be far more questionable.
Re:And we thought that only communists did that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's what they told me in grade school, too... that we were better than the Communists because we didn't do that kind of thing.
Now they're saying that we're better than the Communists (or the terrorists or whatever) which is why it's okay that we do that kind of thing.
It went from "we're better because we act better", to "we're better... because we just are. So it doesn't matter how we act."
It makes me very sad too.
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.
hmm sensitive? (Score:3, Interesting)
f. Do not use the left hand to give a detainee food.
Muslims use their left hand to clean themselves and it
is culturally inappropriate to offer food with the left
hand.
g. Do not relate terrorism to Islam. It is
inappropriate to equate any religion to such heinous
activity.
h. Do not point a finger at detainees as it is
considered very disrespectful and derogatory.
i. Avoid using foul language as it displays a lack of
composure.
These all seem to be fairly positive things, from the point of view of respecting the ways of the people who are detained. This is far less a smoking gun from what I've read and more a guide on how to make people feel as secure and happy as possible when in the camp (which I know won't be a bed of roses for them...). I really wouldn't be amazed if this was "leaked" by a supporter of the guantanamo bay compound. But maybe that's just my cynical nature, it is possible that a lot of the people in the military really do just want to make the situation as good as possible for the people who they happen to have there
Too much emphasis on religion (Score:3)
That reads like a SOP for a well-funded maximum security prison. It's rather labor-intensive; a US prison wouldn't be that heavily staffed. It's amusing that "punishment food" is MREs, which is what our soldiers eat. But that's not a big deal.
The terms are incredibly permissive in one area - religion. Considerable efforts are made to accommodate Islamic worship. The guards are required to handle a Koran in very specific ways. Prayer mats are provided. Even honey and dates are supplied for Ramadan.
When softening up prisoners for interrogation, the US military might do better to provide inmates with lots of American movies and music, but less religious support. Islamic fundamentalism is instilled by emphasis on Islam to the exclusion of all else, and the Camp Delta procedures reinforce that. If prisoners want a Koran, they should get a paperback copy, maybe a Xerox. Let them watch Baywatch reruns, and schedule the good parts to conflict with their prayer schedules. Have different prisoners doing different things at different times, to discourage synchronized prayer. The official attitude should be "if you want to pray, we're not going to stop you. Whatever".
Re:Too much emphasis on religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem with democracy and secrecy (Score:3, Insightful)
However, when they keep stuff secret, we have no such option. Is it important to keep us unaware that part of a prison is not accessible to the people whose job it is to ensure that the prisoners are treated according to relevant laws and conventions? Maybe, maybe not. But when a politician decide to keep it
Re:The Democratic System Certainly Has Its Flaws, (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? The "final arbiters of government secrecy"? Why?
An unquestioning trust in the government goes against everything this country was founded on. The United States was supposed to be under the people. Government officials are supposed to be accountable for their actions to the people that elected them. "Of the people, by the people,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yet Another Left Wing Loony Site (Score:4, Funny)
Four words:
Milli. Vanilli. Lip. Synching.
So there!
Some conspiracies ARE real. (Score:3, Insightful)
Proven government conspiracies:
- The US government's advance knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl harbor in 1941.
- COINTELPRO actions taken against civil rights leaders like MLK.
- CIA-backed coups and assassinations in Latin America during the Cold War.
- The NSA's illegal wiretapping program.
Read more history and current events.
Also, this article isn't about a "conspiracy" per se. It's about actions which are govern
Re:This is a torture manual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course comparisons with the IRA don't fit 100% with the current spate of terrorism because on the one hand the IRA were much more organised and effective than the current jokers and on the other the current terrorists don't have seem to have a political wing or any sensible demands they want met or anyone to meet with to discuss them.
In my opinion we should take reasonable steps to prevent terrorism, use the current police powers to deal with those we catch and chalk up any actual terrorist "successes" to being an unvoidable fact of life and not get ourselves worked up into a foaming lather over what seem to be at the most a hundred or so deaths. This might sound heartless and disrespectful to the victims but at least as many people seem to die in train crashes as die from terrorism which compared to Europes annual number of deaths is a completely insignificant figure.
Re:This is a torture manual? (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume that these people have a great life and they're wimps because they get barked at or someone flushes the koran. Put yourself in there shoes where people scrutinize every time you east, shit, piss and sleep and control every moment of your life and then they turn around and destroy the last sacred bit of decency you ever had.
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: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.
Re: (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.