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?"

13 of 563 comments (clear)

  1. Hmph by moogied · · Score: 5, Funny
    Section D.

    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."
  2. Damning changes? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Damning changes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are?

      We can't tolerate any suggestion that they might be prisoners. They're detainees. We barely acknowledge that they're human beings.

      That's SOP in the Bush administrations' "War on Terra".

    2. Re:Damning changes? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you meant "no longer have to carry a little laminate card" instead of "no longer have to abide..."

      No offense, but your statement seems to be reading a bit more into the document than it actually says.

      Anyway, if you believe Gitmo is evil, the document will support your belief. If you do not believe Gitmo is evil, nothing in the document will change your mind. Frankly, I think the entire article is a troll.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  3. We're all boiling frogs by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:We're all boiling frogs by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who told you that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-Citizens? Let's look at the 5th Amendment:

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Its pretty damned clear to me that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Not "no citizen," but "no person". Due process applies to anyone in the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of citizenship or residence (or in fact their physical location, but that's another argument). Note that "in actual service" phrase if you think you can use the military exemption clause as cover here - that only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen in time of war or public danger.

      Before spouting off, RTF Constitution!

    2. Re:We're all boiling frogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Let me know when prisoners are beaten, maimed, gases, burned, frozen, shot, or made to watch their children murdered."

      Apparently you have no problem holding innocent people in prison, without trial, without access to lawyers, without family contact, for 6 YEARS of their lives.

      Man, what an opportunist scumbag. Someone makes a comparison to concentration camps, and you jump up on your podium and start proudly trumpeting how humane your prison camps are!

      "Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world."

      Sure, let's wipe our misdeeds under the table by pointing at worse criminals next door! The fact remains, you and the operators of these prison camps are criminals and abettors of criminals, and the fact that worse criminals exist in the world does nothing to temper that fact.

      "They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah."

      Who does? The people you're falsely imprisoning? Nope. If they had, you might give them trials. Why don't you give them trials? There is one obvious reason. You think they'll be set free. Now why might that be...?

      "SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc."

      Yeah, those whining ingrates! They should be licking our boots for imprisoning them in such a fine jail!

      "These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply."

      The fact is that the Bill of Rights is clearly not limited to US citizens, and our country is based on liberty and justice for all. That you would rant to the contrary only shows you both a bald-faced liar and a traitor of those values.

      You don't believe in liberty nor justice. You just take them for yourself. This is hypocrisy and worse.

      "These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply."

      I see. They're not soldiers, but they're not not soldiers. Hmm, what are they... I know! They must be alien invaders from Mars! Oh, sorry, wrong line, they're "illegal combatants." What's an "illegal combatant"? Well, nobody is quite sure, but we know they don't deserve trials, yessirree!

      "But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them."

      Oh, good for you. "Look, Frankie next door catches frogs and burns them alive! Why are you mad at me when I only poke out the eyes of the ones I catch?!"

      Scumbag.

    3. Re:We're all boiling frogs by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals. We British tried this one with awesome effect during internment in Northern Ireland. It works like this:
      • Arrest and abuse everyone, regardless of evidence.
      • Turn the hearts and minds of the people utterly against you.
      • Have vastly more people become terrorists in outrage at the complete disregard for due process that you're demonstrating.
      • Now you have far more terrorists. Which makes catching them even easier.
      See how much easier it is to fight criminals when you ensure there are far more of them to catch? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. One is hard to hit. Pack the barrel to the brim and you're bound to hit something.

      It was only under our foolish return to the rule of law and acting with honour again by the late 90's that we had largely stopped outraging the populace. We had far fewer people responding to our behavior and becoming terrorists and found that the population no longer supported the terrorists' actions and no longer offered them safe houses. Do you know how hard it is to catch a terrorist when there are hardly any left?! It was a complete disaster!

      3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens. I believe the administration's preferred term is "undermenschen"
  4. If you want to diff it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html

  5. Re:Just a thought about Gitmo by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If soldiers, they would be POWs and under Geneva conventions.

    If not, they are allegedly civilian criminals and should be prosecuted in the civilian judicial system.

    Problem with Gitmo is the US has decided these people are neither soldiers nor civilians but fall in some black hole category in between, where they have no access to civilian justice and no POW rights either.

  6. Re:congrats to wikileak by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:congrats to wikileak by The+Rizz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:congrats to wikileak by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Informative
    I see this type of reasoning all the time. Let's just set the record straight:

    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!