FBI's Secret Interrogation Manual: Now At the Library of Congress

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."

Comments

Key paragraph

[cold fjord]

"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

[deconfliction]

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:Key paragraph

[Anonymous Coward]

(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

[Antonovich]

Who knows, maybe that's the whole point? They didn't have enough hate to justify the trillions so they are manufacturing it. Might be taking it a bit far... Certainly Gitmo hasn't earned the US much respect as responsible caretakers of the "free world".

Re:Key paragraph

[sumdumass]

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.

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 in a semi sort of Stockholm syndrome way. It's why slaves in the south picked up arms to defend the masters who beat them or housed them in horrid conditions during the civil war.

Re:Key paragraph

[Concerned Onlooker]

"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:Key paragraph

[DexterIsADog]

How about some other type "collateral damage" inflicted by the incompetence of the United States government and its allies? How about if you watched a hellfire missile destroy your daughter's or son's wedding party? Or you were the groom and survived the attack that ripped your bride apart, literally limb from limb? And the U.S. government stuck with its "surgical precision" claims and that civilian casualties are vanishingly small?

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:Key paragraph

[DexterIsADog]

"Regrettable things happen in war..."

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:Key paragraph

[erikkemperman]

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 their government is supporting and arming -- in their name, and on their dime.

Oh and off topic, but I can't help but notice that our Mr Fjord has changed his .sig. Interesting developmen -- before he was trying to appeal to civility to "guide moderators". Now he is suggesting - nay, threatening -- that if you call him out on his reflexive pro-NSA positions you will make yourself a target.

Re:Key paragraph

[DexterIsADog]

At this point, we're talking past each other, because you deliberately started by claiming I said something I didn't. My point is that we are motivating people who would otherwise not take up arms against the U.S. or its allies with tactics that are repugnant and illegal, that is, killing civilians in countries with which we are not at war, and keeping demonstrably innocent people (along with some real monsters) in a gulag.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are bad - committing the inevitable "collateral damage" of slaughtering innocents with flying robot bombers is also bad. The U.S. has lost its way again, like we did during the Vietnam war.

You are either blinkered or heartless in your support of these tactics, but even worse, you're just plain wrong that they are effective.

Re:Key paragraph

[cold fjord]

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"
HAMAS Targets Spain

They want to remove your freedom of worship or not worship, punishing any belief but Islamic belief to varying degrees. The general Muslim position has historically been that Christians and Jews are "People of the Book," close enough that they can be tolerated in Muslim lands, but heavily taxed to create an incentive towards conversion. Polytheists are a hated enemy to be converted, driven out, or killed. (The current extremists do not even want to make the traditional concession to Christians and Jews.) They want to use their religious law to remove your right to eat, drink, and read what you can now. They want to ban alcohol and pornography, for example. They want to remove freedom of expression and punish blasphemy, actively. They want to unify church and state as is the Islamic custom under the Calphate. They believe the problem their societies face will be solved not by digging more sewers and building more schools, but by chopping off more hands and heads. They want to bring that civilization to you, by force if necessary.

I'm not sure who you could miss that. If you have looked into the question at all you must have seen this. Do you reject it? How do you explain the stated desire to return Spain to Islamic rule by blaming the US? If you have looked into the question of extremist Islam in Europe, you know they have the same goal there for Europe. How do you blame that on the United States?

If you haven't noticed the US gets hated for acting and not acting at the same time. Don't interfere! You didn't interfere!

Of course there is little consistency among the Left on related questions. As a practical example, you can see how this operated in 1991 with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. There was essentially no protest in Europe's streets when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The protests came when the US worked to remove Saddam's army. Saddams' invasion wasn't treated as imperialism, or aggression, but removing it was.

As to my sig, I wasn't "guiding moderators" but reminding them that we are having a discussion here. That is hard to do if one viewpoint is removed from view simply because it is not your viewpoint. Some moderators took it to heart and the moderation of my posts become somewhat less harsh, although various intolerant ideologues continue to mod bomb me from time to time. Fascism isn't truly dead, merely resting, and some moderators seem to take it as a guiding principle for their use of mod points.

As to my current sig, I suggest you read it again. I am not "threatening" people taking a contrary position to mine but am doing something different. Do you need assistance in parsing it? I realize that English isn't your first language.

leaks

[svirre]

A useful way of leaking a document to the public while maintaining plausible deniability? The author may be sympathetic to ACLU.

Re:leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely the FBI wanted to be able to charge anyone possessing or sharing it with copyright infringement.

Re:leaks

[Rich0]

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:Mind boggling?

[lucm]

People who see conspiracy theory nuts everywhere are even worse than conspiracy theory nuts.

left hand didn't know?

[bitingduck]

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:left hand didn't know?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 has sunshine on it. There is no requirement levied upon the government to keep track of everyone who's interested in a document and tell them when it's declassified. In fact, there was a reform about 7-8 years ago I think (fuzzy memory) that moved a lot of things out of special categories and into the review cycle.

Re:What a waste of time.

[jcr]

If I were sitting on a jury, and an FBI agent were testifying against the defendant, my first assumption would be that the FBI had concocted the caper in which the defendant was accused of participating. They've done it many times.

-jcr

Re:ACLU Criticism only

[cold fjord]

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 act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress. You can't really have a good, reasoned debate when that happens. It makes it much harder to learn anything useful, or to change your mind, if you never encounter other viewpoints. If you think that there isn't considerable hostility to the "authority/FBI" side here I wouldn't need to look at your ID number to say, "Hi! You must be new here!"

As to your second point about redactions, the first redaction would conceal information about the structure of the FBI's counterintelligence apparatus. The second redaction protects a technique to limit fabrications by prisoners, the knowledge of which could lead to a new tactic for fabricating evidence. I have one in mind myself.

Re:What a waste of time.

[pupsocket]

And that is why you will not sit on a jury. You mind has been polluted by experience and reading.

Trying to gain additional control

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

ACLU have been poring over this since 2012

[ihtoit]

27 July 2012, to be precise: linky [redacted PDF].
I'll post a link to the unredacted version if I can find a non-walled URL.

Re:What a waste of time.

[ciurana]

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 Library of Congress will allow them to release the document?

Cheers!

Re:ACLU Criticism only

[magic maverick]

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 giving them anything but contempt.

Maybe if instead of sucking on the NSAs hypothetical cock/cunt so much, with such "oh yes, I love Big Brother", and your shit about "Al Qaida" being at war with the USA (and being so successful, that they have had one attack in the USA in the last 200 years, unlike the Christian fundamentalists who have had at least three that i can think of), and thus justifying bombing weddings, funerals, and anyone who looks at the drone funny, you just stuck to non-political subjects, you'd get on better. (I've seen +5 posts of yours, so it is possible.)

You are a caricature.