Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks Gets Hold of Counterinsurgency Manual

Posted by kdawson on from the what-we-learned-in-central-america dept.

HeavensBlade23 writes in to let us know that Wikileaks has published a US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual, titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004). "The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."

5 of 999 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Don't you think that it's a *bit* more likely that the document is a fake.

    Besides, please explain how non-western (what ? commie ? islamist ? ...) are better in the morality department ... The current iranian administration killed 500.000 kids (well, they sent them straight into Saddam's bullets after giving them a carton "key to heaven" - this is NOT a joke). North Korea ... well does anything really need to be said ?

    Unfortunately western governments are the best governments there are. They're VERY far from perfect. However they beat the crap out of every other "style" of government.

  2. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Exactly ... Glad I'm not the only non-idiotic slashdot reader.

    "Have I fallen asleep and woken up in some universe where there really are aliens on area 51" is what I'm thinking if I read this document.

    And the truth is simple : it's a fake.

  3. Re:Now that everything that everybody already knew by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Let's just hope you actually have the brains to see this document for the obvious fake that it is.

  4. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Let's not turn this idiocy around. This document does not need to be "proven fake".

    It needs to be proven authentic ! Dear God.

    Oh and don't worry, despite the stupidity of accepting this "on sight", it will be proven a fake. Just give it enough time.

  5. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'll wait for capable people to do that for me, thank you.

    And I still think it looks utterly fake. By that time the government had better tools to create and process documents.