FBI's Secret Interrogation Manual: Now At the Library of Congress 102
McGruber writes "The FBI Supervisory Special Agent who authored the FBI's interrogation manual submitted the document for copyright protection — in the process, making it available to anyone with a card for the Library of Congress to read. The story is particularly mind-boggling for two reasons. First, the American Civil Liberties Union fought a legal battle with the FBI over access to the document. When the FBI relented and released a copy to the ACLU, it was heavily redacted — unlike the 70-plus page version of the manual available from the Library of Congress. Second, the manual cannot even qualify for a copyright because it is a government work. Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."
Key paragraph (Score:5, Funny)
"A document that has not been released does not even need a copyright," says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "Who is going to plagiarize from it? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't violate the copyright because you don't have the document. It isn't available."
"The whole thing is a comedy of errors," he adds. "It sounds like gross incompetence and ignorance."
It's genius, all the way down.
Re:Key paragraph (Score:4, Informative)
Other key information-
"
The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by the FBI's "clean" teams—investigators who collect information intended for use in federal prosecutions. That raises the question of whether teams collecting information that's not for use in federal courts would have to follow the manual's (already permissive) guidelines at all.
Another section, blacked out in the version provided to the ACLU, encourages FBI agents to stage a "date-stamped full-body picture" of a detainee, complete with a bottle of water, for use in refuting abuse allegations at trial.
"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Shrug) More power to them. I know that if I weren't a terrorist before being locked up in Gitmo without a trial, I'd certainly become one if they ever turned me loose.
Re:Key paragraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Key paragraph (Score:5, Insightful)
Try that in Texas... hell, try it in any state in the union. A foreign aggressor who pulled that on Americans would without doubt create new "terrorists" more quickly than they could kill them.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Try that in Texas... hell, try it in any state in the union. A foreign aggressor who pulled that on Americans would without doubt create new "terrorists" more quickly than they could kill them.
No, a foreign aggressor that did that would be in a war, just like al Qaida is. Yet somehow you fault the US for defending itself in this case. There is a key difference between the US and Pakistan, for example. The US government controls all of its own territory whereas Pakistan's central government does not. The tribal territories in Pakistan are largely outside the control of the central government. That is where various guerillas and terrorists flourish. That is where much of the drone activity th
Re: (Score:1)
If you follow the argument from before his post, he is trying to claim that fighting against terrorism causes terrorism. He is trying to claim that the terrorists being held in Gitmo were created by fighting against al Qaida and / or the Taliban. That is clearly wrong since they existed before the US attacked Afghanistan, and al Qaida has often been an unwelcome "guest" in the tribal territories. Regrettable things happen in war, that is why it should be avoided.
Re:Key paragraph (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for plainly displaying the mindset that makes so many people hate the U.S. and prolong this "war" on terrorism with negligent and morally bankrupt tactics.
My point stands - if you slaughter people, expect more of them to hate you. Your argument, "well the Taliban is worse!" doesn't pass the laugh test.
Also, your claim that I or any of the parent posters said the "terrorists being held in Gitmo were created by fighting against al Qaida and / or the Taliban" is simply a lie. Try to argue without strawmen. Mine, and the other points being made were, "if you slaughter people or imprison them unjustly, they will turn against you", but I guess that's inconvenient to your ideological embrace of repugnant tactics.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The morally bankrupt tactics are on the part of al Qaida and its associates who deliberately slaughter noncombatants by many means. The blinkered views of some in the West are of aid to them.
You are fundamentally confused about the source of the war against al Qaida - it is their decision, they declared war [pbs.org] and began attacks killing many people [cnn.com] years before the US made a serious response. They want a war of conquest. They want to restore the "glory of Islam" by restoring the Caliphate government [spiegel.de] that w
Re: (Score:3)
My point stands - if you slaughter people, expect more of them to hate you.
Or even if you don't slaughter people directly, but support the dictatorships that repress them. These people do understand that it is the West who are supporting their tormenters, even if their own populations are not aware of the facts (in the case of the USA I guess this might be because many Americans don't actually follow international news).
This is why the "they hate us for our freedoms" tripe seems to actually fly with a lot of those folks. They seem to honestly not know what kind of brutal regimes t
Re: (Score:1)
Look at a conflict that lies in distant past. In Vietnam US did despikable things. Vietcong did even more despicable things but US tried to have a moral high ground. The only thing that happend in the West was that people looked at this and said - we do not like what is being done in our na
Re: (Score:3)
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are bad - committing the inevitable "collateral damage" of
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'll have to start on the books he authored as Iain Banks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why the "they hate us for our freedoms" tripe seems to actually fly with a lot of those folks. They seem to honestly not know what kind of brutal regimes their government is supporting and arming -- in their name, and on their dime.
The tripe is being served up mainly by people on the Left. The extremist Islamists such as al Qaida directly state that they want to take over the world, convert the population to Islam, and implement Sharia law in every country. They want to take back formerly Muslim lands, such as Spain.
Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest" [jihadwatch.org]
HAMAS Targets Spain [frontpagemag.com]
They want to remove your freedom of worship or not worship, punishing any belief but Islamic belief to varying degrees. The general Muslim posit
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for late reply, hope you get notifications.
I am aware that there are extremist elements out there, Muslim and Christian alike -- and elsewhere of course. But I honestly don't think they'll be able to mobilize much support once they can't point to the West and truthfully say, look, they are supporting the regimes that repress us.
When someone like Ann Coulter says something like "we should invade their countries and forcefully convert then to Christianity", I hope most rational folks realize she is mad
Re: (Score:2)
...Ann Coulter says something like "we should invade their countries and forcefully convert then to Christianity.."
The complete quote was "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
It doesn't change the context of what you wrote; I just thought that murdering their leaders was a nice touch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we lost an amazing writer in Iain Banks. His non-scifi is rather good too, if very grim. I recommend the Wasp Factory.
Re: (Score:3)
Very few people can carry a grudge over the length of time you would be locked up in Gitmo before being released. Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning. [greaterswiss.com]
This is largely what stops wrongfully convicted people from retaliating outside of the legal system on those who did them wrong in the process (corrupt cop, witness IDs the wrong man, Lab tech mixes samples up and so on). By the end of your stay, you would be more likely to defend those people then to harm them
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning. [greaterswiss.com]"
Aha! Yes, those were the exact stages I went through after realizing that the U.S. was just another torturing state and that all that BS they taught me in high school about how we were above all that was indeed BS.
Re: (Score:1)
The "just because" is you may be a psychopath, simply evil, or both.
Key distinction (Score:2)
what about contractors?
foreign militaries like the Czech Republic?
and even if it's true that only 3 were waterboarded (which just seems ridiculous), one of those was Kalid Sheik Mohammed, and they waterborded him **every day** for 200 days in order to get him to confess to masterminding 9/11
how fucking reliable is that confession?
its not
even if it was just once it's too much b/c it **doesn't work** and we know this, look at our interrogation manuals from WWII...the interrogation was like an intervent
Re: (Score:2)
your right, it ends with acceptance- acceptance of the facts and dealing with them. You would be long past the anger stages wanting retribution unless you are somehow brainwashed into an ideology before being captive.
As for being silly, just about every freed wrongfully imprisoned person exhibits this reaction if they have been confined for any amount of time. It is not un-ordinary. While they might be angry, their reactions are not one of wanting to harm anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is more like calm, rational, and capable of planning retribution in great detail that doesn't involve harming innocents or subjecting others to great injustices like you just went through. Like I said, if you have some sort of ideology brainwashed into you that involves harming innocents, it won't matter. For the rest, they will think before they act and take steps to avoid putting others through what they went through for the most part.
Re: (Score:1)
It appears we can only discuss ACLU criticism of the FBI manual, and in a favorable light at that.
Oh get over it. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll when you disagree with that assessment. I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.
While your 'spin' on the meaning of the content may be plausible at first, the key angle is why the narrow redaction to the ACLU if truly there was no valid interpretation of the sort the ACLU and d
Re: (Score:2)
As to your first point, you are mistaken as to the purpose of moderation. Too many moderators make it their mission to suppress valid viewpoints in a discussion, ones they personally disagree with. That isn't the purpose. They should be moderating up good arguments, good data, even if they disagree with it. I've certainly done that in the past. Saying that "this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll" is a considerable understatement. I regularly get mod bombed for the simple ac
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly get mod bombed for the simple act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress.
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but have you considered it might be because of how you phrase the view or evidence?
I've also from time to time posted minority views or evidence, but have never been modded down because of it. In fact, I'm generally always either unmodded or modded up for all my posts.
On the occasions I've been modded down, it's usually mixed with up-mods. For example, I'll often post something only slightly interesting, watch it go up to "+5 Interesting" and than down to around +3 fro
Re: (Score:3)
You regularly get mod-bombed because you're a fucking idiot who is presenting the most inane and stupid ideas, and you expect people to treat those ideas (and yourself) as if they had the same validity as actual sane (even if wrong) ideas.
A lot of people with different opinions get modded up on /. even if those opinions go against the 'group-think'. You, however, are either a troll, or just stupidly crazy (shaken too much as a baby?). Either way, you're opinions are not presented in a manner that justifies
Re: (Score:1)
What debate? If you are going to down mod one side in efforts to hide or censor their commentary, it really isn't a debate is it? We also know that with enough negative mods, posting replies become limited if not outright barred making it not a debate at all.
If the post itself is something other then I do not agree, mod away. If t
Re: (Score:1)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The only problem I had with your comment was the sentences I quoted. If that took the entirety of your comment out of context, I'm sorry. It was the principle of the content on those sentences I intended to address and I intended it to be open to others in moderating too.
That being said, I disagree with down moding your comments too. It isn't about what you said or what someone else said, down moding is not supposed to mean "I disagree" or "we better hide dissenting views to make out position stronger". It
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI is a law enforcement organization (and.. counterintelligence, I think?) that operates domestically. The prisoners in Guantanamo are prisoners of war, captured on battlefields during.. um.. some kind of action, I guess.
Their disposition isn't really for the FBI to determine, as they weren't on US soil until we brought them here, so they couldn't have broken any US laws. Their military disposition however is interesting and apparently also politically quite treacherous. And not relevant to the FBI
Re: (Score:2)
The US imposes jurisdiction on any US entity anywhere in the world. This is why you see the US filing charges on foreign nationals who murder or rob US citizens in foreign lands. Likewise, any embassy, military base, ship or whatever in time of peace, the US imposes jurisdiction unless a previous agreement with a government has made it otherwise.
But to the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about legitimate, but if your intended goal is to face murder charges in the US, it is very possible.
Now back to reality, do not for a minute think that every person in the US accepts or even knows about what the US government is doing or capable of doing. But the US government does treat criminal acts against it's people as criminal acts commited in the US regardless of where that person is. The U.K.does also, Russia does, many countries do this. About the biggest difference is that through tr
Re: (Score:1)
You can't know any of that because nobody is telling the public what's going on in GTMO.
What you're doing is parrotting Fox News.
What you're doing is subscribing to the fallacy that if someone is being detained they must have done something wrong.
Tell that to the Birmingham Six.
Fool.
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing you have to do to be held as a POW is fight for the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
in the course of official duties... (Score:2)
..but torture wasn't supposed to be official, so the thought he could copyright it!
leaks (Score:5, Insightful)
A useful way of leaking a document to the public while maintaining plausible deniability? The author may be sympathetic to ACLU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More likely the FBI wanted to be able to charge anyone possessing or sharing it with copyright infringement.
Re:leaks (Score:4, Funny)
More likely the FBI wanted to be able to charge anyone possessing or sharing it with copyright infringement.
Makes sense. A few more years of RIAA lobbying and that will carry a heavier sentence than treason or espionage.
Re: (Score:3)
People who see conspiracy theory nuts everywhere are even worse than conspiracy theory nuts.
So... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The document is available for review, but not scanning it, or even writing your own notes about it.
Re: (Score:1)
The questions stands. Where is the .pdf?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why go that far, just stuff it down your pants leg and sneak it out. Then destroy it so you don't get caught, and if you do, plead guilty for a $50,000 fine and some community service. That is all you need to do Mr. Sandy Berger.
left hand didn't know? (Score:5, Interesting)
It could easily be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
In the Reynolds case that established the state secrets privilege of the executive branch, the government fought hard to not disclose the accident reports that the widows of civilian contractors were trying to obtain to show that the government had been negligent in maintenance of the aircraft and that they should therefore receive substantial awards. The case started in 1949, and ran into 1953 before it was finally closed by the supreme court in favor of the government.
In the meantime, a routine review in 1950 declassified the disputed reports from "secret" to "restricted", which is the equivalent of FOUO, which would have allowed the use of the reports in the case. Everyone involved in the case, from the plaintiffs up to the supreme court, and including all witnesses, was unaware of the declassification, which wasn't discovered until the 2000's. The case ran to its conclusion with everyone involved continuing to believe that the documents were classified. The case went on to be the legal basis for all future claims of state secrets privilege by the executive branch.
ref:http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliberties_state_secrets&timeline=civilliberties
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. This is clearly demonstrates that the system actually works. In spite of the hysterical bitching that people "classify documents to hide crimes", the classification criteria and declassification criteria are very rigid, it's a felony to illegally classify something that is unclasified, and the declassification review system works. In both of these cases, the redaction decisions were appropriate in the context they were made. The declassification decisions were also appropriate, and the information now h
Re: (Score:1)
Except that's EXACTLY what the government did in U.S. v. Reynolds. The later findings of other courts that "well, the Soviets MIGHT have been able to learn something from the accident report" is a fucking load of bullshit, and is evident to anyone that's actually read the declassified documents.
What a waste of time. (Score:2)
Why the hell is there an article about the manual being found and not an article containing the portions of the manual that were previously redacted?
It's ignoring the meat to talk about the how the potatoes were picked at the farm.
Re: (Score:1)
Why the hell is there an article about the manual being found and not an article containing the portions of the manual that were previously redacted?
"
The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why you will not sit on a jury. You mind has been polluted by experience and reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Howdy.
Works in the Library of Congress may be reviewed but not copied. The person(s) who reviewed this manual, and found the discrepancies, noted them and made them public. The original copyright holder must give permission for this work to be reproduced. That's why there are no copies, just mentions of the discrepancies.
Not sure without checking with my IP attorney how to get around this, since it's unlikely that the copyright holder will grant further copying permission. Perhaps a FOIA request to the
Trying to gain additional control (Score:3)
Sounds to me like some genius at the FBI was trying to gain additional control over that manual. If they could copyright it, they could issue DMCA take down notices to anybody hosting a copy of the manual when it finally does get out in unredacted form. Somebody who didn't know the law thought they could give themselves a club to use against sites publishing it. Too bad for them that it's not legal to copyright it.
Please bear that in mind, anybody who does publish it. You will probably get take down notices. Ignore them. They're illegal. If you're using third party hosting and your host removes it, file the counter notice immediately. The take down notice they receive will be illegal.
I'll bet a pizza that there will be at least one DMCA notice issued before somebody gets a handle on this idiot lawyer at the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Magnet links. Wonderful things.
ACLU have been poring over this since 2012 (Score:2)
27 July 2012, to be precise: linky [aclu.org] [redacted PDF].
I'll post a link to the unredacted version if I can find a non-walled URL.
OK (Score:1)
"Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."
But if the data is sent to a private company who then processes it does that still apply.
Because the DoD is doing exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't DoD, it's FBI. But the answer to your question is that something prepared by a non-government company (contractors) can be copyrighted.
This manual isn't classified, but it was obviously a mistake to submit it for copyright.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm referring to the DoD using a private company for their video and photo storage, same issue less accessibility.
Still no copyright (Score:2)
This will be SOP (Score:1)
Then the next thing they will do is increase penalties for copyright violations for "national security".
Re: (Score:2)
[scopolamine's] use in medicine is relatively limited, with its chief uses being in the treatment of motion sickness and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Scopolamine has no side nor primary effects that would make it suitable for use as you claim. So, are you an idiot, or did you mean something else?
pics or it... (Score:2)
Well, where is it? Post a torrent link or I don't believe you.