Your government's secrecy at risk

[STP]

Just a short partial answer to JosephH's post:

 

I'm trying to avoid some of the other potential implications of accepting your premises, for instance, that the 2000 elections were a sham or that enough foreknowledge of 911 was available to prevent the full scope of the operation from occurring.

 

( not that you said any of these things )

[Fairweather]

Fairweather:

Why would you suggest maintaining an "open mind" about the Bush Administration at THIS point? They are no longer in power and we don't need to fall in line or risk aiding the terrorists any more and, as Joseph points out: we have more than sufficient facts to bring judgment on at least some aspects of their conduct.

 

As one who frequently trumpets their interest in history, what do you think of any possible parallels between Bush and Lincoln or Roosevelt? Or, to focus on more recent history, was Bill Clinton taking steps that ultimately led to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?

 

It is your lack of interest in history and blind ideology that lead you to the conclusion Bush did anything extraordinarily dark. Compare to FDR and Lincoln? You've got to be kidding.

 

Let's see: FDR imprisoned American citizens by the tens of thousands in concentration camps without charge or trial, firebombed Japanese cities with no military value and killed perhaps more than a million civilians, ordered the electrocution of German "saboteurs" who had harmed no one, attempted to stack the supreme court...

 

Lincoln sent federal troops in to NY to suppress Irish rioters--1100 were killed, arrested staff of the Chicago Tribune, suspended Habeas Corpus for American citizens, and raised an army that started the US toward a war of choice in which almost one million were killed.

 

We've been over all this before, matt. Bush is small potatoes compared to the "crimes" these two imposed on American citizens. Any attempt to break you out of that box you're in is going to have to come from within--and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

BTW, Jospeh: "Neocon" is left-code for Jew and the fact that you include Wolfowitz in every reference thereto lends no credence to your arguments whatsoever. You can deny your bigoted beliefs if you like, but your repetition of the word over and over and over is seeping hatred.

 

 

[billcoe]

FW, you have Joseph wrong on the Neocon=Jewish=racist tag. I don't believe he has a racist bone in his body. Neocon to him only means neo, as in NEW-conservative. A philospohy. Here is a link to a definition you can use but you can skip the controversial Jewish hater charge for JH as it doesn't apply outside of what is best for the country. For JH I'm sure it's about the U.S., and what is best for US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative Don't know why you bring up that idea to somehow reduce his ideas to not being worthy of thought. Wolfowitz should be included in that as his writings, thoughts and philosophy often steered the admins actions.

 

JH's first sentence, ie, that the admin had a plan and 9/11 gave them justification to act on it, seems obvious enough to the rest of us. BTW, I think Lincoln was/is way overrated, and as far as FDR goes, don't forget that his breaking of the law to get material support to our allies before the war both ultimately got us involved and possibly in the end (arguably) saved our country. Plans recovered from Germany after the war had the US included in the military invasion/grand plans of the 3rd Reich. So I see Reagan/Bush doing the Iran-Contra thing, and although it pisses me off, the FDR (being right) comparison keeps me from being too judgmental. We often do not know 1/2 of what is really going on until many many years later, if at all.

[kevbone]

 

We've been over all this before, matt. Bush is small potatoes compared to the "crimes" these two imposed on American citizens. Any attempt to break you out of that box you're in is going to have to come from within--and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

 

FW.....stop trying to compare Bush to dead people. Bush is alive. He needs to be held accountable for bankrupting America. He alone is responsible for how the world views America. Its not 9/11 that is responsible….but how he responded to it. Your arguments are old and week. Especially the week part. I don’t give a hell what happened 70 years ago….all I care about is what is happening now and what we leave to our children. You have children right?

 

If anything you would think we would learn from our mistakes…..I guess the GOP has not.

 

[mattp]

Fairweather,

All insult aside, I find it interesting that you would call me ideological in a post where you suggest such disapproval for Lincoln and Roosevelt’s crimes while arguing that Bush did nothing sinister. Go back and reread my post: I contain a cite to and restatement of some of the arguments from a guy who was a member of Bush’ team who has written a book largely in DEFENSE of your hero’s policies. I also specifically wrote that the guy has a plausible argument that Bush’s actions were not as much of an anomaly as I or some of my left leaning friends might believe.

 

Was the whole invade-on-false-pretenses-thing and ignore-the-downside-risk thing and the torture-memo business a whole package that was put in place by Bill Clinton?

[tvashtarkatena]

Both FDR and Lincoln certainly trampled on civil liberties, but I'm not sure why that's relevant other than to serve as regrettable of human rights violations that should never have been repeated.

 

A just society does not abandon its respect for human rights for safety, real or perceived. Some here have tried to parse the torture issue into technical differentiations between what they personally consider is torture or not, stating that it's worth it to ensure that safety of innocents. This argument is fundamentally flawed in several ways. a) It violates the first axiom of this paragraph. b) Torture of any kind violates our rule of law, as codified by Common Article of the Geneva conventions (the wording of which I've posted 3 times now on this forum). Either we are a nation of laws or tyranny. We can't be both. c) By torturing, we are actually violating our laws and principles, for all the world to witness, imitate, and retaliate against, in exchange for hypothetical information that may or may not be there, that may or may not save lives, and that probably can be gotten more effectively by other means (according to pretty much all the experts on the subject). The idea that we need to torture to save lives, that it is the lesser of two evils, is a myth promulgated by movies and TV, not reality. The enormous cost of doing so, however, to our national security, our honor, and to torture victims in other nations who follow our lead, is very real.

 

Torture is one of the primary tools of fascism, pure and simple. Those who espouse it's virtues, particularly those using sanitized, clinical cost/benefit analysis style arguments, should examine their own eroded humanity in a harsher light. A moral, civilized society does not torture.

[JosephH]

Regarding Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy per Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (October 2003 to July 2004):

 

Every president in war time and in crisis—Lincoln, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, just to name three—exercised extraordinarily broad powers. They pushed the law and stretched the law and bent the law, and many people think they broke the law. And we’ve largely forgiven them for doing so because we think that they acted prudently in crisis. So Lincoln—he did all sorts of things after Fort Sumter. He spent unappropriated moneys. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

 

Now, there’s a way of looking at the Cheney-Addington position on executive power which is not unlike some of the most extreme assertions of Lincoln and Roosevelt. But there are important differences. One is that both Lincoln and Roosevelt coupled this sense of a powerful executive in times of crisis with a powerful sense of a need to legitimate and justify the power through education, through legislation, through getting Congress on board, through paying attention to what one might call the “soft” values of constitutionalism. That was an attitude that Addington and I suppose Cheney just did not have.

 

The second difference, and what made their assertion of executive power extraordinary, is: it was almost as if they were interested in expanding executive power for its own sake.

 

[Fairweather]

 

Torture is one of the primary tools of fascism, pure and simple. Those who espouse it's virtues, particularly those using sanitized, clinical cost/benefit analysis style arguments, should examine their own eroded humanity in a harsher light. A moral, civilized society does not torture.

 

And yet your version of this moral, civilized society would still allow for the dismemberment killing of unborn human life in a purely cost/benefit analytical manner. I think you should examine your own eroded humanity. A moral society does not kill its children.

[tvashtarkatena]

I knew this would come up (it always does), but I would agree with our Supreme Court's compromise ruling that balances the rights of the mother with the rights of a fetus once it has a viable chance of surviving outside the womb. I consider it an imperfect solution to a problem with multiple competing interests and no clear cut solution, moral or otherwise. Many of us believe that the State forcing a mother to bear an unwanted child when only weeks pregnant is more cruel and barbaric than abortion; again, a scenario conveniently omitted by your post. Torture, on the other hand, is as morally clear cut as it gets, IMO.

 

I suppose it boils down to how much state sponsored cruelty an individual will support. My tolerance for such cruelty happens to be very low. We also differ in how moral an example a society sets matters. I believe that you underestimate how much it does matter, and how much better the outcome would be for everyone if our example were to improve.

Edited February 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[STP]

Torture is one of the primary tools of fascism, pure and simple. Those who espouse it's virtues, particularly those using sanitized, clinical cost/benefit analysis style arguments, should examine their own eroded humanity in a harsher light. A moral, civilized society does not torture.

 

Then why didn't President Obama disavow the use of techniques outlined in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual in regards to psychological 'torture'?

 

 

[STP]

Fairweather,

All insult aside, I find it interesting that you would call me ideological in a post where you suggest such disapproval for Lincoln and Roosevelt’s crimes while arguing that Bush did nothing sinister. Go back and reread my post: I contain a cite to and restatement of some of the arguments from a guy who was a member of Bush’ team who has written a book largely in DEFENSE of your hero’s policies. I also specifically wrote that the guy has a plausible argument that Bush’s actions were not as much of an anomaly as I or some of my left leaning friends might believe.

 

Was the whole invade-on-false-pretenses-thing and ignore-the-downside-risk thing and the torture-memo business a whole package that was put in place by Bill Clinton?

 

Addington used the analogy of a soccer game with us as the blindfolded goalie trying to prevent the unseen adversaries from hitting the goal. What methods would have to be used in actuality to counter the threat?

 

Also it would've been interesting to see how Gore/Lieberman would have handled 911. I suspect they would have seen the necessity of acting quickly to the Taliban. Who's to say how that Democratic administration would have dealt with Iraq as a potential threat to stability in the Middle East?

[tvashtarkatena]

Torture is one of the primary tools of fascism, pure and simple. Those who espouse it's virtues, particularly those using sanitized, clinical cost/benefit analysis style arguments, should examine their own eroded humanity in a harsher light. A moral, civilized society does not torture.

 

Then why didn't President Obama disavow the use of techniques outlined in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual in regards to psychological 'torture'?

 

 

1) You'll probably want to address your question to President Obama, not me.

 

2) I haven't been able to find the wording of Appendix M anywhere in the short time I'm willing to alot to do so. Had you provided a link with your reference to that wording you might have gotten an opinion out of me. Given the misinterpretations of Obama's recent executive orders on this and similar threads, I wouldn't advise trusing any blog to 'paraphrase' accurately. Frankly, I consider blogs the raw sewage of the op ed world.

 

My understanding right now, correct or incorrect, is that the AMF adheres to the Geneva conventions. I've seen nothing credible on this thread to prove otherwise so far.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[STP]

http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf

 

So interrogations shouldn't be any harsher than a typical police questioning?

Edited February 10, 2009 by STP

[tvashtarkatena]

That link ate my CPU. Not gonna click on it again.

[tvashtarkatena]

Obama's 'offending' executive order...complete text. Note that it was issued 2 days after he took office. If there are, indeed, inconsistencies between the human treatment he's ordered and the AFM, he a) may simply not either be aware of them, b) hasn't had time to address those inconsistencies, or c) feels they don't exist:

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

 

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

 

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

 

 

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

 

(a) "Army Field Manual 2 22.3" means FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.

 

(b) "Army Field Manual 34-52" means FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, issued by the Department of the Army on May 8, 1987.

 

© "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

 

(d) "Convention Against Torture" means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100 20 (1988).

 

(e) "Geneva Conventions" means:

 

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

 

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

 

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

 

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

 

(f) "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3.

 

(g) The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

 

 

Sec. 3. Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.

 

(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

 

(b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment. Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.

 

© Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

 

 

Sec. 4. Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

 

(a) CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

 

(b) International Committee of the Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals. All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.

 

 

Sec. 5. Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies.

 

(a) Establishment of Special Interagency Task Force. There shall be established a Special Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies (Special Task Force) to review interrogation and transfer policies.

 

(b) Membership. The Special Task Force shall consist of the following members, or their designees:

 

(i) the Attorney General, who shall serve as Chair;

 

(ii) the Director of National Intelligence, who shall serve as Co-Vice-Chair;

 

(iii) the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve as Co-Vice-Chair;

 

(iv) the Secretary of State;

 

(v) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

 

(vi) the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

 

(vii) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

 

(viii) other officers or full-time or permanent part time employees of the United States, as determined by the Chair, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

 

© Staff. The Chair may designate officers and employees within the Department of Justice to serve as staff to support the Special Task Force. At the request of the Chair, officers and employees from other departments or agencies may serve on the Special Task Force with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency that employ such individuals. Such staff must be officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States. The Chair shall designate an officer or employee of the Department of Justice to serve as the Executive Secretary of the Special Task Force.

 

(d) Operation. The Chair shall convene meetings of the Special Task Force, determine its agenda, and direct its work. The Chair may establish and direct subgroups of the Special Task Force, consisting exclusively of members of the Special Task Force, to deal with particular subjects.

 

(e) Mission. The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

 

(i) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2 22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies; and

 

(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.

 

(f) Administration. The Special Task Force shall be established for administrative purposes within the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice shall, to

the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide administrative support and funding for the Special Task Force.

 

(g) Recommendations. The Special Task Force shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, on the matters set forth in subsection (d) within 180 days of the date of this order, unless the Chair determines that an extension is necessary.

 

(h) Termination. The Chair shall terminate the Special Task Force upon the completion of its duties.

 

 

Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6© of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

 

BARACK OBAMA

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 22, 2009

 

Edited February 10, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[STP]

ACLU?

 

Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition

 

 

[pc313]

That link ate my CPU. Not gonna click on it again.

 

It eat mine too!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

As usual, when one takes 10 minutes to review the actual offending document, the controversy mysteriously vanishes:

 

The Evil Appendix M (sorry, I hilighted the juicy bits, but the formatting didn't come through.)

 

Nothing to see here, move on....

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Interrogation Technique – Separation INTRODUCTION M-1. As part of the Army's efforts to gain actionable intelligence in the war on terrorism, HUMINT collectors may be authorized, in accordance with this appendix, to employ the separation interrogation technique, by exception, to meet unique and critical operational requirements. The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques or gathering new information to support a cover story; decreasing the detainee's resistance to interrogation. Separation, further described in paragraphs M-2 and M-28, is the only restricted interrogation technique that may be authorized for use. Separation will only be used during the interrogation of specific unlawful enemy combatants for whom proper approvals have been granted in accordance with this appendix. However, separation may not be employed on detainees covered by Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW), primarily enemy prisoners of war (EPWs). The separation technique will be used only at COCOM-approved locations. Separation may be employed in combination with authorized interrogation approaches— • On specific unlawful enemy combatants. • To help overcome resistance and gain actionable intelligence. • To safeguard US and coalition forces. • To protect US interests.

 

GENERAL M-2. This appendix provides doctrinal guidance for the use of separation as an interrogation technique. Separation involves removing the detainee from other detainees and their environment, while still complying with the basic standards of humane treatment and prohibitions against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and addressed in GPW Article 3 (Common Article III). Separation is to be distinguished from segregation, which refers to removing a detainee from other detainees and their environment for legitimate purposes unrelated to interrogation, such as when necessary for the movement, health, safety and/or security of the detainee, or the detention facility or its personnel. This appendix— • Will be reviewed annually and may be amended or updated from time to time to account for changes in doctrine, policy, or law, and to address lessons learned. • Is not a stand-alone doctrinal product and must be used in conjunction with the main portion of this manual.

 

M-3. Careful consideration should be given prior to employing separation as an interrogation technique in order to mitigate the risks associated with its use. The use of separation should not be confused with the detainee-handling techniques approved in Appendix D. Specifically, the use of segregation during prisoner handling (Search, Silence, Segregate, Speed, Safeguard, and Tag [5 S's and a T]) should not be confused with the use of separation as a restricted interrogation technique. M-4. Members of all DOD Components are required to comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations. Proper application of separation as a restricted interrogation technique in selective cases involving specific unlawful enemy combatants and in accordance with the safeguards outlined in this manual is consistent with the minimum humane standards of treatment required by US law, the law of war; and does not constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and addressed in GPW Common Article III. M-5. Use of separation for interrogation is authorized by exception. Separation will be applied on a case-by-case basis when there is a good basis to believe that the detainee is likely to possess important intelligence and the interrogation approach techniques provided in Chapter 8 are insufficient. Separation should be used as part of a well-orchestrated strategy involving the innovative application of unrestricted approach techniques. Separation requires special approval, judicious execution, special control measures, and rigorous oversight. M-6. Additionally, the use of separation as a restricted interrogation technique shall be conducted humanely in accordance with applicable law and policy. Applicable law and policy for purposes of this appendix include US law; the law of war; relevant international law; relevant directives including DOD Directive 3115.09, “DOD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning”; DOD Directive 2310.1E, “The Department of Defense Detainee Program”; DOD instructions; and military execute orders including FRAGOs. M-7. More stringent than normal safeguards must be applied when using the separation technique. Use of separation is subject to USD(I) oversight. Compared to approach techniques, there are two additional steps in the approval process (see Figure M-l) for the use of the separation technique: • First, the COCOM Commander approves (after SJA review) use of the separation technique in theater. • Second, following the COCOM Commander's approval, the first General Officer/Flag Officer (GO/FO) in an interrogator's chain of command approves each specific use of separation and the interrogation plan that implements separation (this is non-delegable). Interrogation supervisors shall have their servicing SJA review the interrogation plan before submitting it to the GO/FO for approval.

 

GENERAL CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS HUMANE TREATMENT M-15. All captured or detained personnel shall be treated humanely at all times and in accordance with DOD Directive 3115.09, "DOD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning"; DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program,” and no person in the custody or under the control of the DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including theDetainee Treatment Act of 2005. All intelligence interrogations, debriefings, or tactical questioning to gain intelligence from captured or detained personnel shall be conducted in accordance with applicable law and policy. M-16. Any inhumane treatment—including abusive practices, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005—is prohibited and all instances of such treatment will be reported immediately in accordance with paragraph 5-69 thru 5-72. Beyond being impermissible, these unlawful and unauthorized forms of treatment are unproductive because they may yield unreliable results, damage subsequent collection efforts, and result in extremely negative consequences at national and international levels. Review by the servicing SJA is required prior to using separation. Each interrogation plan must include specific safeguards to be followed: limits on duration, interval between applications, and termination criteria. Medical personnel will be available to respond in the event a medical emergency occurs.

 

FM 2-22.3 REQUIREMENTS M-17. Separation must be employed in accordance with the standards in this manual. These standards include the following: • Prohibitions against abusive and unlawful actions (see para 5-75) and against the employment of military working dogs in the conduct of interrogation (see paras 5-59 and 8-2). • Requirement for non-DOD agencies to observe the same standards for the conduct of interrogation operations and treatment of detainees when in DOD facilities (see para 5-55). • Prohibition on guards conducting intelligence interrogations or taking any actions to set the conditions for interrogations. Humane treatment, evacuation, custody and control (reception, processing, administration, internment, and safety) of detainees; force protection; and the operation of the internment facility are discussed in paragraphs 5-57 through 5-66. (FM 3-19 .40 and JP 3-63 also thoroughly discuss detainee operations.) • Assignment of ISNs to all detainees in DOD control, whether or not interrogation has commenced, as soon as possible; normally within 14 days of capture. (See AR 190-8 and Secretary of Defense Memorandum dated 20 September 2005, "(S//NF) Policy on Assigning Detainee Internment Serial Numbers (ISN)(U)." • Access to detainees by the ICRC.

 

REPORTING OF ABUSES AND SUSPECTED ABUSES M-18. As an interrogation technique, separation is particularly sensitive due to the possibility that it could be perceived as an impermissible act. Interrogators applying the separation technique and the chain of command supervising must be acutely sensitive to the application of the technique to ensure that the line between permissible or lawful actions and impermissible or unlawful actions is distinct and maintained. Therefore, HUMINT collectors should have heightened awareness and understanding of the risks, interrogation technique that appears to be cruel, inhuman, or degrading as defined in US law; or impermissibly coercive, or is not listed in this manual, is prohibited and should be reported immediately to the chain of command or other appropriate channels for resolution. Orders given to treat detainees inhumanely are unlawful. Every interrogator must know how to respond to orders that the individual interrogator perceives to be unlawful (see paras 5-80 through 5-82). M-19. If the order is a lawful order, it should be obeyed. Failure to obey a lawful order is an offense under the UCMJ.

 

COMMAND POLICY AND OPERATION ORDERS M-20. The provisions of this appendix must be written into COCOM policy and/or OPORDs when using the restricted interrogation technique of separation.

 

MEDICAL M-21. Commanders are responsible to ensure that detainees undergoing separation during interrogation receive adequate health care as described in greater detail in paragraph 5-91.

 

TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION M-22. Only those DOD interrogators who have been trained and certified by the United States Army Intelligence Center (USAIC), or other Defense HUMINT Management Office (DHMO) designated agency, in accordance with guidance established by USD(I) to use separation, are authorized to employ this technique. The training must meet certification standards established by the Defense HUMINT Manager in coordination with applicable DOD components. Properly trained and certified contract interrogators are authorized to initiate interrogation plans that request the use separation, and, once the plan is approved, to employ the technique in accordance with the provisions of this appendix and Appendix K. Contract interrogators will always be utilized under the supervision and control of US government or military personnel (see para K-19 and K- 20). Non-DOD personnel conducting interrogations in DOD facilities must be certified by their agency and separately gain approval (through their agency's chain of command) for the additional technique described in this appendix. They must present this written certification and agency approval to the COCOM before use is permitted (see para 5-55).

 

PLANNING M-23. Planning for the use of separation must include— • An interrogation plan that addresses safeguards, limits of duration, interval between applications, termination criteria, and presence of qualified medical personnel for emergencies (see Figure M-2). • A provision for detainees to be checked periodically in accordance with command health care directives, guidance, and SOPs applicable to all detainees. • A legal review.

 

APPLICATION OF SEPARATION TECHNIQUE M-26. The purpose of separation is to deny the detainee the opportunity to communicate with other detainees in order to keep him from learning counter-resistance techniques or gathering new information to support a cover story, decreasing the detainee's resistance to interrogation. Separation does not constitute sensory deprivation, which is prohibited. For the purposes of this manual, sensory deprivation is defined as an arranged situation causing significant psychological distress due to a prolonged absence, or significant reduction, of the usual external stimuli and perceptual opportunities. Sensory deprivation may result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and anti-social behavior. Detainees will not be subjected to sensory deprivation.

 

M-27. Physical separation is the best and preferred method of separation. As a last resort, when physical separation of detainees is not feasible, goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs may be utilized as a field expedient method to generate a perception of separation.

 

M-28. Objectives: • Physical Separation: Prevent the detainee from communicating with other detainees (which might increase the detainee's resistance to interrogation) and foster a feeling of futility. • Field Expedient Separation: Prolong the shock of capture. Prevent the detainee from communicating with other detainees (which might increase the detainee's resistance to interrogation) and foster a feeling of futility.

 

• Duration: Self-explanatory. •

 

Physical Separation: Limited to 30 days of initial duration. •

 

Field Expedient Separation: Limited to 12 hours of initial duration at the initial interrogation site. This limit on duration does not include the time that goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs are used on detainees for security purposes during transit and evacuation. •

 

Oversight Considerations for Field Expedient Separation: The intended use of field expedient means of separation must be specified on the interrogation plan that is submitted to the GO/FO for approval. Detainees must be protected from self-injury when field expedient means of separation are used. The effect of the application of field expedient separation means on the detainee must be monitored to detect any possible health concerns. M-30. The following safeguards apply to both Physical Separation and Field Expedient Separation. •

 

Break: Additional periods of separation will not be applied without the approving GO/FO's determination of the length of a break between iterations. •

 

Extension: Physical Separation Method: Extensions of this technique past 30 days must be reviewed by the servicing SJA and approved by the original approving GO/FO or his replacement in that position. 

 

Field Expedient Method: Extensions past 12 hours of initial duration at the initial interrogation site must be reviewed by the servicing SJA and approved by the original approving/replacement GO/FO. 

 

Medical: Detainees will be checked periodically in accordance with command health care directives, guidance, and SOPs applicable to all detainees. 

 

Custody and Control: The interrogation chain of command must coordinate the interrogation plan with the Detention Operations Commander. The Detention Operations Commander (in conjunction with the MI commander) may convene a multidiscipline custody and control oversight team including, but not limited to, MP, MI, BSC (if available), and legal representatives. The team can advise and provide measures to ensure effective custody and control in compliance with the requirements of applicable law and policy. •

 

Oversight Considerations: Use of hoods (sacks) over the head, or of duct tape or adhesive tape over the eyes, as a separation method is prohibited. If separation has been approved, and the interrogator subsequently determines that there may be a problem, the interrogator should seek further guidance through the chain of command before applying the technique.

 

Care should be taken to protect the detainee from exposure (in accordance with all appropriate standards addressing excessive or inadequate environmental conditions) to— − Excessive noise. − Excessive dampness. − Excessive or inadequate heat, light, or ventilation. − Inadequate bedding and blankets. − Interrogation activity leadership will periodically monitor the application of this technique. Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours. Oversight should account for moving a detainee from one environment to another (thus a different location) or arrangements to modify the environment within the same location in accordance with the approved interrogation plan. M-31. Suggested Approach Combinations: • Futility. • Incentive. • Fear Up.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

ACLU?

 

Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition

 

 

Anthony R. is not immune from overstatement. The issue is far from over, Obama just took office, so we'll all see how it plays out.

 

Meanwhile, it seems as though my assertion that the AFM complies with Common Article 3 is, in fact, correct.

[kevbone]

Regarding Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy per Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (October 2003 to July 2004):

 

Every president in war time and in crisis—Lincoln, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, just to name three—exercised extraordinarily broad powers. They pushed the law and stretched the law and bent the law, and many people think they broke the law. And we’ve largely forgiven them for doing so because we think that they acted prudently in crisis. So Lincoln—he did all sorts of things after Fort Sumter. He spent unappropriated moneys. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

 

Now, there’s a way of looking at the Cheney-Addington position on executive power which is not unlike some of the most extreme assertions of Lincoln and Roosevelt. But there are important differences. One is that both Lincoln and Roosevelt coupled this sense of a powerful executive in times of crisis with a powerful sense of a need to legitimate and justify the power through education, through legislation, through getting Congress on board, through paying attention to what one might call the “soft” values of constitutionalism. That was an attitude that Addington and I suppose Cheney just did not have.

 

The second difference, and what made their assertion of executive power extraordinary, is: it was almost as if they were interested in expanding executive power for its own sake.

 

One of the biggest differences to the Presidents mentioned above and the Bush crime family is Iraq is a war of choice. We "choose" to occupy Iraq......big frickin difference if you ask me.

[pc313]

In the Obama press conference tonight when asked what he thought about the Bill that Senator Leahy is perpossing on Truth and reckoning of the"Bush Administrations criminal charges" that might go up for a vote in the Senate his reply was nobody is above the law!!! :

 

Talk about opening up a can of worms!!!

Edited February 10, 2009 by pc313

[STP]

ACLU?

 

Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition

 

 

Anthony R. is not immune from overstatement. The issue is far from over, Obama just took office, so we'll all see how it plays out.

 

Meanwhile, it seems as though my assertion that the AFM complies with Common Article 3 is, in fact, correct.

 

The way I see it, the devil in the details or lack thereof. The reason I mention this is that you make the Obama administration out to be the antithesis of the Bush administration, that the new administration is morally superior. However, the Obama administration has reserved the right to use extraordinary methods if required. See Leon Panetta's testimony regarding such.

 

I think it's just the reality of the political machine to be astute with regards to public and world perception. Look at how Obama or his administration actually proceeded with regard to matters such as FISA reform (telecom immunity, warrantless surveillance), alleged torture in contradiction to human rights, etc. For instance, watch how this case ( Rendition case in S.F. to test Obama policies ) unfolds.

 

Again, the devil is in the details or lack thereof.

 

Under which Article do unlawful enemy combatants fall? Common Article 3 covers lawful combatants as prisoners of war.

Common Article 4 covers civilians (not combatants).

 

Appendix M appears to prohibit certain actions, for instance, sensory deprivation is stated as not allowed but there is no distinction made between total sensory deprivation and partial sensory deprivations such as absence of light.

 

 

 

[mattp]

I agree with you 100% about torture, Tvash, and you have never seen me argue in support of any trampling of civil rights but I cited the arguments about Lincoln and Roosevelt to suggest there may be room for discussion with our more right wing friends here at cc.com and even maybe those who we scream at in vain when we see them on TV.

 

The book I quoted from is interesting, in my opinion, in that it presents a plausible argument that what the Bushies did was not as completely aberrational as you and I frequently might suggest. I think we can pretty clearly distinguish Bush and his buddies' interpretation of expanded presidential powers from those of Lincoln and FDR and even Bill Clinton (even if you maintain a critical view of these past presidents), because as Kevbone suggested much of what the Bushies did was in pursuit of a "war of choice" and because, as somebody else said (was it you? No, it was Joseph) the pursuit of presidential power seems to have been an end in itself with Bush Co., but never-the-less I think it is interesting to consider Goldsmith's arguments.

 

Meanwhile, I find your insistence that torture is torture and anybody who would split hairs a little ironic in light of your arguments, above, that there is rendition and there is "rendition." I'm hopeful that Obama will take us in a completely new direction when it comes to these matters, and I am taking him at his word for now. Further, I have argued that tenor and tone are nearly as important as the actual nuance of policy. But I am at present only hopeful - not 100% certain.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2009 by mattp

[tvashtarkatena]

The designation and treatment of 'enemy combatants' is fully defined in the AMF. There is little ambiguity.

 

I give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt because a) I agree with his platform to begin with, b) because he just took office and c) I very much like what he's done so far in so few days.

 

I never gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, because his platform and past history were a trainwreck to begin with. Nearly every one of his actions only reinforced my low opinion of him, formed during the campaign.

[tvashtarkatena]

Um, sensory deprivation pretty much means lack of light, dude. Keep it simple, people.