Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gitmo Manual Leaked Online

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gitmo Manual Leaked Online




    A sensitive manual from the military's Guantanamo Bay facility has surfaced online, Wired News reports. It lays out exacting instructions for psychologically manipulating detainees, dealing with hunger strikes, rewarding prisoners with “comfort items” like extra toilet paper, and evading Red Cross inspectors. The administration promised the Red Cross full access, but guards are instructed in the manual to deny even visual access to certain detainees. • The 238-page document appeared on Wikileaks, after four years of Freedom of Information Act requests from the ACLU failed to yield access to it. It appears genuine, and is signed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who reportedly introduced harsh interrogation techniques like stress positioning to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The manual evokes Abu Ghraib images, telling guards to use dogs to intimidate prisoners.

    Source: Wired


    https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Ca...ting_Procedure
    Last edited by Centrix Vigilis; 14 Nov 07, 12:43.

  • #2
    Good.

    Show the light, and the people can find the way.

    General Geoffrey Miller should be tried for war crimes.

    Comment


    • #3
      "Show the light, and the people can find the way."

      It depends on who is showing the light, as to which way the people find.

      If in matters of national security truth is always the best policy why don't we just go ahead and publish every secret of every program designed to target terrorist anywhere in the world? Why not, all they want to do is kill us and destroy our very way of life. Might as well help them out!!

      There used to be a criminal offense in this country called treason. Wonder what happened to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        There used to be a criminal offense in this country called treason. Wonder what happened to it.

        Oh it's still there alright......you just gotta look.

        http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/tit...apter115_.html

        BTW i posted this as a matter of info in correlation with some threads that are ongoing which shows the disproportinate distance most Americans feel on this issue. Whether i agree with certain forms of interrogation or not and i do..is moot. The issue here is: classified docuementation exposure SOP's and laws under that same Title 18.

        A criminal offense.

        personaly i prefer the following sections:

        http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2381


        http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2382

        http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2388


        but as this was probably leaked by a service member with access then you have to deal with Title 10and the UCMJ. What ever the source and it looks viable from a distance..one presumes that the threat of prosecution was insufficient to deter the offending party....for what ever reason.

        best
        CV
        Last edited by Centrix Vigilis; 14 Nov 07, 13:54.

        Comment


        • #5
          and we know it is the real deal because........................
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
            one presumes that the threat of prosecution was insufficient to deter the offending party....for what ever reason.
            Patriotism.

            Assuming it's the real deal, bravo to him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
              There used to be a criminal offense in this country called treason. Wonder what happened to it.

              Oh it's still there alright......you just gotta look.

              http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/tit...apter115_.html

              BTW i posted this as a matter of info in correlation with some threads that are ongoing which shows the disproportinate distance most Americans feel on this issue. Whether i agree with certain forms of interrogation or not and i do..is moot. The issue here is: classified docuementation exposure SOP's and laws under that same Title 18.

              A criminal offense.

              personaly i prefer the following sections:

              http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2381


              http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2382

              http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC2388


              but as this was probably leaked by a service member with access then you have to deal with Title 10and the UCMJ. What ever the source and it looks viable from a distance..one presumes that the threat of prosecution was insufficient to deter the offending party....for what ever reason.

              best
              CV
              From the document:

              UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

              FOUO. Not quite a high security document.

              We've release hundreds of Gitmo detainee's since 28 Mar 03 (the date of the SOP). A dozen of them have been caught on the battle field once they've been release. You don't think that they've been debriefed on every single detail of Gitmo????

              I'll bet a dollar to a nickel that this SOP is not and has not for awhile been the current SOP at Gitmo. I'm sure it was gone over with a fine tooth comb after the scandals at Abu Grab.

              SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” MEAN? One of the most commonly encountered questions we get deals with the real meaning of “For Official Use Only” and the implications for storage, transmittal, and disposal. The following information, while not formal policy, will hopefully help steer you straight.
              First, off, “FOUO” is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym. Other government departments use it, but many have also come up with their own, similar phrases, to include “Sensitive but Unclassified,” or “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” or just “Official Use Only.” While this discussion only covers FOUO, it hopefully might also answer questions relating to these other, similar markings.
              “Unclassified//For Official Use Only” (abbreviated to U//FOUO) is a handling instruction, as opposed to a true classification marking. It is used only for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. That is, U//FOUO cannot be gratuitously placed on any document simply as a means of better controlling the content.
              For any document/product correctly bearing the U//FOUO handling instruction, certain safeguards must be taken. Generally speaking, the material should be treated as if it were classified CONFIDENTIAL. This means it cannot be discarded in the open trash, made available to the general public, or posted on an uncontrolled website. It can, however, be shared with individuals with a need to know the content, while still under the control of the individual possessing the document or product. For example, U//FOUO material relating to security precautions during overseas assignments may be shared with family members at home. The material should then be returned to the government office and be properly retained or destroyed. Wherever possible, U//FOUO information should not be passed over unencrypted communications lines (e.g., open phones, non-secure fax, personal e-mails). If no secure communications are available for transmission, U//FOUO material may be sent via unprotected means, with supervisory approval after risk has been assessed.
              All IOSS products which are marked U//FOUO should be handled in the manner described above. If you have questions, please send us an e-mail at [email protected] . Defense Department personnel can learn more about FOUO policy by consulting DoD Directive 5400.7-R, “Department of Defense Freedom of Information Act Program,” dated September 4, 1998.
              http://www.ioss.gov/WhatDoesFOUOMean.html

              It needs to be treated as confidential. I can see Art 15 proceedings for mismanaging documents labeled with it. Not treason, not even under release of classified information, because it is labeled clearly that it is not such.
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Besides I've never seen a GO yet not have his staff redo the SOP after they've taken over command. Gives us (former ) staff pukes something to worry about.......
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  FOUO. Not quite a high security document.

                  Indeed correct. yet ntl FOUO 'is' a classification and prosecutable for unauthorized dissemenation... dependent on Command policy and sensitivity of subject and thats from one ole staffie to another.

                  best
                  CV

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                    FOUO. Not quite a high security document.

                    Indeed correct. yet ntl FOUO 'is' a classification and prosecutable for unauthorized dissemenation...and thats from one ole staffie to another.

                    best
                    CV
                    Yup, but it's not going to get someone sent to the stockade for 10-20 years either.....
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      concur...

                      what it does do in this case is provide ammo for the Bush haters.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                        concur...

                        what it does do in this case is provide ammo for the Bush haters.
                        It also points out that mistakes were made. Hopefully they've been corrected in the new SOP's.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                          concur...

                          what it does do in this case is provide ammo for the Bush haters.
                          According to ce, there are no Bush haters. Well, at least none that also blame Bush-voters and believe those voters should share in the culpability for Bush's mistakes. Any Bush haters that may actually exist keep those feelings of hatred and revenge totally focused on President Bush and never allow themselves to apply those feelings to those who simply voted for Bush. Even though there are numerous examples, nearly every day, of those moonbats and their violent ways.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                            concur...

                            what it does do in this case is provide ammo for the Bush haters.
                            Which is most likely the agenda behind the leak in the first place.
                            If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                              and we know it is the real deal because........................
                              We dont...but 'we' also know from former first hand experience at writing those sorts of things..ie. TACSOPS, MFR's, POI's etc...that the format appears standard and that seal appears genuine.

                              Does this mean it might not be a subtrefuge...no.

                              But the dis-advantage of a forgery that's later to be exposed ala the the Dan Rather fiasco isn't worth the effort....or backblast.

                              best
                              CV

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X