« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Score another one for Wikileaks. This morning -- thanks to a source known only as "Peryton" -- the open-source website for whistleblower documents published the 2004 manual for U.S. military detention operations at Guantanamo Bay. You can read it, with commentary, here.
Last month, Wikileaks published the 2003 edition of the manual. Among other controversial provisions, the manual instructed officials to hide certain detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross, a practice that the military repeatedly denied was in existence at Guantanamo. Spokespeople for the U.S. military's Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo Bay, said the manual was outdated and assured that some instructions that violated the Geneva Conventions were no longer in effect.
It's unclear so far what portions of the 2004 manual remain in place. (Maybe Peryton will enlighten us in the future.) The Washington Post's Josh White quotes Guantanamo Bay spokesman as saying that "things have changed dramatically" at the camp since 2004. But Wikileaks finds that, in key areas, the 2004 manual didn't change so much from 2003:
Systematic denial of Red Cross access to prisoners remains. The use of dogs remains. Segregation and isolation are still used routinely and systematically – including an initial period of at least 4 weeks "to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee", only terminated at the behest of interrogators. Both manuals assert that detainees will be treated in accordance with the "spirit" of the Geneva conventions "to the degree consistent with military needs", but never assert that the conventions are actually being followed at Guantanamo. Put into practice, neither manual complies with the Geneva conventions.
So is the past prologue? We'll find out. For now, though, dig into the 2004 manual and let us know in comments what you think is most significant.
Comments (14)
John wrote on December 4, 2007 9:31 AM:Read carefully: Wikileaks has a color-coded diff between the 2003 and 2004 edition of the manual so there is no need to guess what changed:
http://wikileaks.org/leak/gitmo-sop-2003-2004.html
AltHippo wrote on December 4, 2007 10:05 AM:I would hesitate to say this is most significant, but it speaks tons about the use of language: "Hunger Strikes" are now "Voluntary Total Fasts."
TheraP wrote on December 4, 2007 10:10 AM:AltHippo: It's all in the language, isn't it?
But what's fascinating to me is that like all totalitarian regimes, these folks write everything down in great detail. All their crimes memorialized for history to analyze.
Barry Halpern wrote on December 4, 2007 10:58 AM:Kind of off topic but what the fuck is up with "Gambling is strictly forbidden." Is it summer camp for children? I would think they'd want to instill some good old Western values in the population and create an atmosphere that will encourage talking. Every aspect of BushCo is just as incompetent as it is corrupt (morally and financially).
Barry Halpern wrote on December 4, 2007 11:10 AM:"Instruct the detainee that if he removes the ID bracelet he will not be fed until another is made for him." Not a change but I would think it would certainly be a Geneva Convention violation to deny all food for any reason.
nickm wrote on December 4, 2007 11:10 AM:Looks like the geeks got ahold of this one too...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/1336220
As pointed out in the comments, "MPs" was replaced with "Guards" in section 3-4. Interesting. Blackwater much?
Barry Halpern wrote on December 4, 2007 11:15 AM:Eliminated: "All soldiers will carry the “US SOUTHCOM Human Rights Standing Orders” card on them at all times." This could certainly be interpreted as intentionally blurring the lines as to what is illegal treatment of detainees and would be consistent with the high-level obfuscations along the lines of using the mantra "torture is illegal" but never explicitly outlining what qualifies as torture.
seanh wrote on December 4, 2007 11:57 AM:"3) Detainees are given 20 minutes per postcard and 30 minutes per letter. If a detainee takes longer than this, he should be told to address the item and turn than this, he should be told to address the item and turn it in.
(4) If a detainee refuses, he will be instructed to turn in the mail immediately or it will not be sent out."
Postcard discrimination? Even if our government is torturing and refusing open trials for detainees, we can at least be thankful Guantanamo has a postcard kiosk. "Wish You Were Here!"
seanh wrote on December 4, 2007 12:08 PM:New in 2004 manual:
"(5) The volume of the television at the access control point will be kept at a moderate level at all times and shall be tuned in to the CNN station."
Prisoner remote control privileges revoked! Prolonged exposure to CNN, and only CNN, sounds pretty terrifying.
This is fun.
parrot wrote on December 4, 2007 1:28 PM:Who wrote these manuals and who approved them? They apparently violate U.S. treaty obligations and laws--the military legal code was apparently ignored by the authors. Someone(s) should be held responsible for that...
johnson wrote on December 4, 2007 1:32 PM:parrot: the military legal code was apparently ignored
In what way? (Not challenging your assessment, just interested.)
whidbeygrl wrote on December 4, 2007 1:52 PM:There are many mentions of Muslim religious items, and of these being used as rewards and punishments.
Sorta sounds as if the entire prison population is Muslim?
Anyone else read it that way?
I could be wrong. The USA certainly would not be focusing solely on only Muslims as terrorists, would it?
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 4, 2007 2:09 PM:Actually, this ISN'T that new. The leak was first announced three weeks ago, as I noted on my blog at http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/army-lied-about-hiding-gitmo-detainees.html.
But, I guess sometimes a tree falling doesn't make a noise unless a big enough blog hears it.
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 4, 2007 2:17 PM:My bad; that was actually the 2003 manual that was posted last month. Nonetheless, it was controversial enough it should have gotten more blog play than it did.