61 shows cross flow of US personnel from Iraq to Guantanamo/US; and commenting on Geneva lessons from Iraq applied to US POWs.

Why, despite Abu Ghraib, did the lessons not sink into the Americans' minds?

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:54 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

64 Attorney-client boilerplate statement.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:53 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

65 SPIRNET comment shows there are other emails in the classified DoD information systems.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:52 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

JDG: Joint Detention Group

False argument, confusion

84: 12:05

"how can we be sure that GTMO's processes are okay for Charleston?"

Note the language suggesting there was discussion about whether to use the Guantanamo procedures in Charleston. This relates to the previous (incorrect) assertion that Guantanamo was "not" within US jurisdiction. However, the issue of whether Geneva did or did not apply at Guantanamo was a moot point once DOJ OLC in 2001 said POWs might bring lawsuits.

They were rationalizing POW abuses because they could not get information from those who had nothing to do with placing the explosives in WTC 1, 2, and 7. The goal of judicial oversight is to intervene, not give a blank check to more abuse based on circular-defective reasoning.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:44 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

84 OSD Detainee Affairs indicates in 2006 OSD-level were involved, despite the 2001 DOJ OLC memos raising prospective of lawsuits against US personnel. They've had five (5) years to get things right, and still apparently were ignoring Geneva despite the DOJ OLC warnings in 2001.

This is evidence of reckless disregard for Geneva, and does not support the assertion Geneva was vague, ambiguous, or unclear. Said another way, despite the US government officials and legal counsel knowing of should have knowing that these were war crimes they continued with the illegal activity long after concerns were raised; and US military personnel in JAGs raised objections.

- Despite Nuremberg precedents, why weren't there more resignations within the ranks of DoD, US government to remove themselves from this illegal activity? - What threats were made against US officials/personnel to continue with Geneva violations? - How does anyone in the US government justify the continued Geneva violations despite no attention on who placed the explosives in WTC 1, 2, and 7?

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:35 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

Comment II of II

B. Acronym

SHU: Special Housing Unit

C. Possible Other use

Consider the following which also uses "SHU staff":

I’ve done within this camera cell . . . has been observed, scrutinized, and recorded for and by the SHU staff and for future training purposes of the same

D. The Disclosed DoD Prisoner Management Plan

First, look at the "CSHRA Notes" on the plan, discussing why the procedures still (apparently, per the email) used in 2007 were violating Geneva.

Second, consider the following specific prisoner management plan information as it relates to "SMU":

(CD0404) Behavior Management Plan a. Phase One Behavior Management Plan (First thirty days or as directed by JIG [or Joint Interrogation Group]).

The purpose of the Behavior Management Plan is to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process. It concentrates on isolating the detainee and fostering dependence of the detainee on his interrogator.

During the first two weeks at Camp Delta, classify the detainees as Level 5 and house in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) Block. During this time, the following conditions will apply:

(1) Restricted contact: No ICRC [or International Committee of the Red Cross] or Chaplain contact.
(2) No books or mail privileges.
(3) MREs [or Meals Ready to Eat] for all meals.
(4) Basic comfort items only: (a) ISO Mat (b) One blanket (c) One towel (d) Toothpaste/finger toothbrush (e) One Styrofoam cup (f) Bar of soap (g) Camp Rules (h) Koran (i) No prayer beads or prayer cap.
(5) Mail writing and delivery will be at the direction of the J-2.

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

Comment I of II

Alleged War Crime Evidence (Geneva): Illegal 2004 Plan Apparently Still Used in 2007

The email below from 2007 references an important acronym from a 2004 Detaining management plan. This suggests the 2004 was well known and still being used three (3) years later; and that the personnel involved were well aware of legal requirements well discussed by DOJ OLC in 2001. In other words, despite the 2001-DOJ OLC concerns about lawsuits, there were still procedures in place that would continue POW treatment.

A. Information in Email

7:15, April 13, 2007: 87 suggest coordination with OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense), and "possibly" DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency).

Posted at October 10, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

See page 8 and 11 for other comments on scanned mail: 85 shows the ICRC documents.

Note the PDF file:

DEC2.pdf

The "DEC2" suggests "December 2nd", a date of an ICRC visit.

Note the lag times between when the ICRC named the PDF file, and when the ICRC sent the message. This suggests what a reasonable time would be to (a) receive and scan a letter; and (b) then send an email with that scanned file.

the following list shows the December files appeared to have been delayed for much longer, suggesting the file was large, personnel were working with new procedures, or there was important information they didn't know how to screen before forwarding:

28Jun06.pdf 28 Jun 2006 0 Days lag
26Jun06.pdf 26 Jun 2006 0 Days lag
07Apr06.pdf 11 Apr 2006 4 day lag
18Apr061.pdf 18 Apr 2006 0 day lag
03 Apr062.pdf 03 Apr 2006 0 day lag 03Apr061.pdf 03 Apr 2006 0 day lag
22 Mar 062 23 mar 2006 1 day lag
08Mar061.pdf 09 Mar 2006 1 day lag
08 Mar 062.pdf 08 Mar 2006 0 day lag
03Mar062.pdf 09 Mar 2006 6 day lag
03 Mar 061.pdf 09 Mar 2006 6 day lag
1 Feb06.pdf 01 Feb 2006 0 day lag
Dec1.pdf/ 19Jan06.pdf 19 Jan 2006 30-45 day lag

Posted at October 10, 2008 1:59 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

Note the different length of the salutations in 1 and 2, where the dash is presumably after a space. This suggests the first name is three letters, like "Ken" "Jon" "Joe" "Dan" "Bob" "Bil" "Wil"; while the second name is four letters, like "Mike" "John" "Bill" "Dave".

Sample 1: Page 89: April 13, 2007, 7:23

Sample 2: Page 87: April 13, 2007, 7: 15

Sample 2 is different, where the dash, before a space, is four-letters for a name, not three spaces in Sample 1.

Posted at October 10, 2008 1:49 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses

Page 91: The salutation "V/R" suggests they are saying "very respectfully," and the authors were in the military.

Note page 91 has carrot-symbols on the left side, indicating that the message was copied, and included as an attachment.

Page 90: Has another "V/R", suggesting they were responding to a superior. This suggests the attachment on page 90-91 was forwarded to a third person, another supervisor.

Clock Times Distinguish Between Superiors

For identification purposes: Note one of the clocks is 24-hour military time; while the other is on a 12-hour AM/PM. This will help distinguish between the three authors: One superior is on 24-hours; another superior is on 12-hours, the third (and others) are subordinates.

If 5 were the same person as 2, their clock should have been 14:57, not 2:57PM. It appears 3 and 5 are the same, second superior.

1. Original Sent: Page 90-91: 14:54, April 12, 2007

2. Supervisor Forwarded, three (3) hours later: Page 90: 17:54, April 12, 2007

3. Second supervisor responds the next morning, 7:23AM April 13, 2007

4. Subordinate responds (three days later, presumably from Guantanamo), 13:42, April 16, 2007

5. Superior replies: 2:57PM, April 16, 2007

Posted at October 10, 2008 1:42 PM in response to Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses