Diffing Guantanamo Bay SOP Manuals 563
James Hardine writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Wikileaks has released another manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay together with the US military's rendition operations manual. This release follows from the Wikileaks release of the 2003 SOP Manual as discussed on Slashdot last month. Wikileaks compares the two manuals (2003, 2004) and reveals damning changes in official US detainee policy in exquisite detail. Who knew that diff could be such a powerful political weapon?"
Hmph (Score:5, Funny)
1. Policies in regard to treatment of prisoner's shoes.
A. Shit in them.
The Rules (Score:2)
The second rule of Guantanamo is, there are no rules.
The third rule of Guantanamo is, always obey the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
1. These are the rules of Gitmo.
2. Nobody can or will find out whether they're upheld.
3. Draw conclusions.
Diff is powerful (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I don't see Congress utili
Re:Diff is powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could be nothing; they could be using other military personnel who aren't MPs as a form of staff augmentation ( i.e. Navy MAAs, USAF security police, et. al. ). Could be contractors, FBI agents ( kinda doubt it, but hey, why not? ).. just people without the MP MOS.
Not sure if it qualifies as "damning", but did seem interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damning changes? (Score:5, Interesting)
We can't tolerate any suggestion that they might be prisoners. They're detainees. We barely acknowledge that they're human beings.
That's SOP in the Bush administrations' "War on Terra".
Um, NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.
One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO.
This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.
Semper Fi
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, who said they didn't learn from history [wikipedia.org]?
(apologies to Godwin)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm... I think that's pretty damning, in and of itself.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, but your statement seems to be reading a bit more into the document than it actually says.
Anyway, if you believe Gitmo is evil, the document will support your belief. If you do not believe Gitmo is evil, nothing in the document will change your mind. Frankly, I think the entire article is a troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that the
Re:Damning changes? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that lots of people have been released from Guantanamo, don't you? And that many of those people have been formally exonerated by their home nations of committing any crime?
One of the people held at Guantanamo has been there since he was 14. Was he one of the "worst of the worst"? The government won't say what he did but, perversely, has described him as a "good kid" that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards. Staff at Guantanamo have reported that, for the most part, they don't know why most people are being held there.
And you're not. Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were sold to the US Army by Afghani warlords/drug lords. And they're about as reputable as they sound.
Re:Damning changes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which version of the Geneva Convention have you read? I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean "war crime" but meant "crime at time of war" because clearly a "war crime" is a well-defined term that doesn't really fit the context of your argument.
Whether you're wearing a uniform or not.
Now, the GC never really define who are lawful combatants and who are unlawful combatants; they do however define who deserves treatment as a POW and who do not (in the 3rd Convention [wikipedia.org]). The leap from protection classes to classes of combatant, while not explicit is pretty broadly accepted as detailed in the wikipedia entry for Unlawful Combatant [wikipedia.org]:
Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:
Moreover, it explicitly excludes POW status from people who resist once the territory is occupied.
Article 4.1.6 extends POW status to:
Oh, and if the GC doesn't satisfy you - how about the Laws of War [wikipedia.org] according to which "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly."
You go on to claim: "Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Please cite your source on this. I have never heard anyone make this claim. By the way, the US held German prisoners during WW2 at POW camps in CONUS - was this a "war crime?"
And then again: "So is interrogating them."
Interrogating them (prisoners lawful or not) is not a crime. Police "interrogate" suspects every day in the country and it is perfectly legal. The military interrogates suspected militants overseas every day - again, perfectly legal. Unless by "interrogate" you meant "torture" and by "torture" you meant something harsher than the hazing I suff
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are misinterpreting the GC, either through ignorance or quite willfully, as no where does Article 4 say those are requirements. Rather, that is a (as we shall see) inexclusive list of indicators:
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
If you're confused, read Article 5, which very clearly assigns a d
Re:Damning changes? (Score:4, Insightful)
People like the Australian David Hicks, who was found guilty of supporting terrorism through the nefarious act of guarding a tank. What a bastard!
If these are the worst of the worst, then Al Qaeda isn't so bad after all.
And what about those Brits who were let off with a smack on the hand? Or Mamdouh Habib (another Aussie) who was 'rendered' in Egypt for the US and then released without charge?
Gitmo is absolutely not about keeping the worst of the worst. It's about keeping suspects outside US legal jurisdiction. The question "Why?" is critical here. What reasons could there be for denying legal access to suspects?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your blind faith is amusing. That might well be the intention, but according to the Boston Globe, 146 detainees have been released [boston.com] from Guantanamo by late 2004 (because I'm too lazy to track down more recent numbers). Clearly, either Bush is soft on your "worst of the worst," or the system make lots of mistakes. Deal with that fact bef
Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with this sort of treatment, but what should we do with them now? It's a bit late to say don't let it happen in the first place. We have a large group of people pissed off at the United States and with good reason. If we let them go and their home countries won't take them back, where should we put them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
One approach would be to claim that it's not really a wolf, it's a bloodthirsty monster, and we don't really have it by the ears, and it's being well treated anyway. Plus no one else will grab it by the ears for us.
Or you can just take your licks for doing something that's so obviously stupid.
My claim is that you need to introduce them to the US judicial system and let it sort things out. Some bad guys might be able to slip through the cracks, but in my opinion we deserve any blowback that we get.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is we already have a system for dealing with captured solders. If the Gitmo detainees are "enemy combatants" they should have access to THAT system in all of its honest workings. When you open it up to the civilian judicial system you have things like Habius Corpus that wouldn't really work in a military trial. Also, do you open it up to JUST them or EVERY captured solder EVER?
As much as I hate it Military and civi
Re:Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, they are allegedly civilian criminals and should be prosecuted in the civilian judicial system.
Problem with Gitmo is the US has decided these people are neither soldiers nor civilians but fall in some black hole category in between, where they have no access to civilian justice and no POW rights either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just a thought about Gitmo (Score:5, Informative)
I quote:
An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
"Enemy Combatants" (Score:3, Informative)
In this context, it might be relevant to note that our use of such legal reasoning to avoid giving captured enemy combatants the protection of either the Geneva conventions—or any other sort of law—is not without precedent. In 1941, General Eisenhower declared all captured German soldiers to be "Disarmed Enemy Forces", and not prisoners of war. This meant that the United States was free to ignore international laws that required such niceties as feeding prisoners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wik [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Third Geneva Convention, you must have status determined by a military tribunal; until then, the prisoners are POWs. In the case that they are unlawful enemy combatants, then they must
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You cannot "overturn" a decision by the Supreme Court via treaty, and the supremacy clause says no such thing. Or perhaps you imagine that, say, Brown v Board can be undone merely because Congress ratifies a treaty that says separate-but-equal is just A-OK.
In a word, no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the problem with the Geneva Conventions - they were written for a different kind of war.
If I had to put an end date to it, I'd say that the "conflict" is ended when the nation from which they were taken is in a position to restrain them from further combat if returned. In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more - Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole c
Re:Not to be partisan, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more
So basically, we want a pro-US government in Afghanistan that will take these prisoners, and then throw them in prison indefinitely (or execute them)? At that point, we'll be willing to call the conflict resolved?
Sorry, but that sounds like empire building to me. Of course, an alternative would be that enemy combatants are released to Afghanistan, who subsequently "forgets" about them. Said combatant then disappears to Durkadurkastan for a while, and we call that a victory as well, since they are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slit its throat.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, treat them as you think human beings should be treated ? Yes, almost exactly like an American. Time for a quote
"Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
--- Universal Declaration of Human R
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing we in decent free nations, under the rule of law, do for anyone who has been wronged. Free them, and punish those who wrongfully imprisoned them. Right up to the very top of the tree - the place where the buck stops (although the present incumbent doesn't think so).
Today I heard something truly hilarious on a BBC news broadcast. The reader described the US intelligence report that says Iran stopped trying to deve
orwell (Score:2)
Re:orwell (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading in another ten years that would shock us now but will seem like regular occurrences in 2017? Thoughtcrime executions, archived recording of all telephone calls (the European Union is already working on this!), incarcerating people because they have the "genes" of a potential psychopath (again, the EU is looking into this)? It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The keyword here is "stories". I am really wondering how much of these Wikileaks documents are just stories (fiction) and how many are really leaked documents. These could be so easily fabricated. I question all sorces (/. included) on the internet as anything can be faked here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/blackout.asp [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some reasons to doubt news stories:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592 [truthout.org]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36694-2005Mar15.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/ [msn.com]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece [independent.co.uk]
Major news outlets carried falsified stories in order to gauge citizen reaction. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you feel that the above stories might be fake, we're in the same boat--not knowing what to believe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even skepticism can be elevated to the level of paranoia and insane conspiracy theorism.
In some cases here we are talking documents that have been out a couple of years, for which there is not the slightest hint of denial or discreditation. Documents which, if they were not authentic, it would be unreasonable to presume they would not have been denied
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view? As others have mentioned, glancing at the diff doesn't seem to produce any truly "damning" evidence. The real tragedy is not the way the SOP dictates that the prisoners (I won't stoop to calling them the PC detainees) be treated, but that they have spent
Re: (Score:2)
It was the implicit notion I had that went.. "hey, reading this actually seems semi-normal nowadays.. and that shouldn't be the case." We shouldn't have to read about this crap because it shouldn't be going on in the first place but now it's part of the same-old.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for c
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:4, Informative)
Google around a bit - some of the guys who have already been released once they finally started having military hearings about their cases have nothing to do with terrorism.
For a while there we were offering a cash reward for anyone who would sell us a terrorist. So countries used that to point out anyone they didn't like and have them sold to us and sent to Gitmo. Two guys were just cartoonists who made fun of their local government! But it took over a year at least for them to be released.
Even ignoring full civilian trial rights, we at least need some sort of legitimate defense so that we have to prove that people were actually enemy combatants before we lock them up. I'm sure even with a court-appointed lawyer we wouldn't have any trouble locking a guy away for the moment because there was eye witness testimony he was shooting at American soldiers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
1. About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them.
Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.
2. A concentration camp is something else than an extermination camp. Concentration camps were set up and are set up to round up people deemed somehow dangerous without ever telling anyone why exept for some general accusations. Germans were using the term "concentration camp" because it didn't have the horrible sound until it was discovered that the German concentration camps in fact were extermination camps.
3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Interesting)
- Arrest and abuse everyone, regardless of evidence.
- Turn the hearts and minds of the people utterly against you.
- Have vastly more people become terrorists in outrage at the complete disregard for due process that you're demonstrating.
- Now you have far more terrorists. Which makes catching them even easier.
See how much easier it is to fight criminals when you ensure there are far more of them to catch? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. One is hard to hit. Pack the barrel to the brim and you're bound to hit something.It was only under our foolish return to the rule of law and acting with honour again by the late 90's that we had largely stopped outraging the populace. We had far fewer people responding to our behavior and becoming terrorists and found that the population no longer supported the terrorists' actions and no longer offered them safe houses. Do you know how hard it is to catch a terrorist when there are hardly any left?! It was a complete disaster!
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is in the business of kidnapping people and imprisoning them without any form of trial or appeal. How is that fair? How is that just? How is that according to your rules of the land?
To me that's bullying behaviour: "We don't like him, let's put him behind bars in a place where he can't hurt us."
How many innocent people are in Guantanamo Bay?
And why did the US built that prison in a foreign country?
I can't believe you can still sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Informative)
Who told you that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-Citizens? Let's look at the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Its pretty damned clear to me that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Not "no citizen," but "no person". Due process applies to anyone in the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of citizenship or residence (or in fact their physical location, but that's another argument). Note that "in actual service" phrase if you think you can use the military exemption clause as cover here - that only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen in time of war or public danger.
Before spouting off, RTF Constitution!
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you have no problem holding innocent people in prison, without trial, without access to lawyers, without family contact, for 6 YEARS of their lives.
Man, what an opportunist scumbag. Someone makes a comparison to concentration camps, and you jump up on your podium and start proudly trumpeting how humane your prison camps are!
"Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world."
Sure, let's wipe our misdeeds under the table by pointing at worse criminals next door! The fact remains, you and the operators of these prison camps are criminals and abettors of criminals, and the fact that worse criminals exist in the world does nothing to temper that fact.
"They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah."
Who does? The people you're falsely imprisoning? Nope. If they had, you might give them trials. Why don't you give them trials? There is one obvious reason. You think they'll be set free. Now why might that be...?
"SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc."
Yeah, those whining ingrates! They should be licking our boots for imprisoning them in such a fine jail!
"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply."
The fact is that the Bill of Rights is clearly not limited to US citizens, and our country is based on liberty and justice for all. That you would rant to the contrary only shows you both a bald-faced liar and a traitor of those values.
You don't believe in liberty nor justice. You just take them for yourself. This is hypocrisy and worse.
"These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply."
I see. They're not soldiers, but they're not not soldiers. Hmm, what are they... I know! They must be alien invaders from Mars! Oh, sorry, wrong line, they're "illegal combatants." What's an "illegal combatant"? Well, nobody is quite sure, but we know they don't deserve trials, yessirree!
"But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them."
Oh, good for you. "Look, Frankie next door catches frogs and burns them alive! Why are you mad at me when I only poke out the eyes of the ones I catch?!"
Scumbag.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the bill of rights only applies to citizens, and not everybody under US law.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure if they were actually all guilty but the problem is that most of them have never been on trial and their guilt have never been established. We already know of cases where some of them were found to be innocent and released after losing a few years of their lives in prison for nothing. Throwing someone in a county prison for years without trial isn't exactly being merciful.
Re:We're all boiling frogs (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what you are saying is that because Gitmo is not subject to the rule of the US constitution, those civilians who were captured have no rights under it and that because they are civilians, they have no right under the GC. So, in fact, they have no rights whatsoever. And that everything is OK because they are allowed to practice their religion and brush their teeth.
And you somehow think it's right.
Keep in mind a lot of them were captured during the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US and whose largest offenses were being ruled a obnoxious dictator that pissed off the POTUS and who have every right not to thank the US because they were bombed back to stone age and then invaded by so called liberators. If at some point in the future some foreign power decides to invade the US and a civilian resistance movement starts, would you be OK with your fellow countrymen being held in a legal limbo? Would it be fine to torture them as long as they can practice their religion and brush their teeth?
If Gitmo is not part of the US, then what is it? Part of Cuba that has been invaded for so long that Cubans don't care anymore? Shouldn't it be under _some_ law?
And, BTW, the US Constitution applies to everyone within any part of the US territory (including embassies, planes and boats in international waters) and not only to US citizens. It's sad (not to say it betrays the legacy of your Founding Fathers) to think one can bend _this_ law to serve any purpose.
I hope this shameful episode will end someday.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, when someone does not act within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, such as not wearing a distinct uniform or mixing within the populace, then all rights are withheld. For example, Klaus Barbie was a German Officer who did two things in Lyon, France. First, he rounded up Jews and sent them to concentration camps. Second, he executed members of the French Resistance. When tried in the 80's in France, he was convicted of crimes against humanity for the deporation of the jews, convicted of lif
If you want to diff it.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html [thesmokinggun.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html [aclu.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques [wikipedia.org]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html [americanthinker.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml [truthout.org]
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 [scotsman.com]
On the US
Who, us? (Score:2)
The terrorists are organized.
*rimshot*
Diff knows many things. (Score:4, Insightful)
0
Re:Diff knows many things. (Score:5, Funny)
Should this diff be reffered to (Score:2, Funny)
Changed MPs to Guards (Score:4, Insightful)
come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is no evidence then release them.
But holding them indefinitely on hearsay and suspicion in a legal limbo is madness. The problem will not get easier to deal with the longer you leave it, at some point they will have to be dealt with - so better to get it out of the way now. Confront the problem whatever the cost, return or charge them, and get that embarrassment and shut down.
Let's review (Score:5, Interesting)
Policy will now be reviewed every 30 days instead of 120 days.
New rules:
1. Comply with all rules and regulations. You are subject to disciplinary action if you disobey any rule or commit any act, disorder, or neglect that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
2. You must immediately obey all orders of U.S. personnel. Deliberate disobedience, resistance, or conduct of a mutinous or riotous nature will be dealt with by force. Be respectful of others. Derogatory comments toward camp personnel will not be tolerated.
3. You may not have any articles that can be used as a weapon in your possession at any time. If a weapon is found in your possession, you will be severely punished. Gambling is strictly forbidden.
4. Being truthful and compliance will be rewarded. Failure to comply will result in loss of privileges.
5. All trash will be returned immediately to U.S. personnel when you are finished eating. All eating utensils must be returned after meals.
6. No detainee may conduct or participate in any form of military drill, organized physical fitness, hand-to-hand combat, or martial arts style training.
7. The camp commander will ensure adequate protection for all personnel. Any detainee who mistreats another detainee will be punished. Any detainee that fears his life is in danger, or fears physical injury at the hands of another person can report this to U.S. personnel at any time.
8. Medical emergencies should be brought to the guards' attention immediately. Your decision whether or not to be truthful and comply will directly affect your quality of life while in this camp.
(nothing in there seems particularly onerous. Aside from #2, it wouldn't make a bad set of rules for any school in the US.)
(stopped reading because I have better things to do)
I'd rate this -1, Overrated. It's a bunch of clarifications, seems to me as much for the detainees' benefit as anyone.
Re:Let's review (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Me too. I'm very proud of people who actively try to make the world a better place by exposing the atrocities committed by these pigs. I say, Right on! And feel free to log in the next time you post, Mr. President. You have nothing to fear from us.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US [thesmokinggun.com], not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Informative)
From the 9/11 hearings when Senator Gorton interviewed Richard Clarke, the Clinton Administration's Terror Czar and head of counter-terrorism.
FORMER SEN. SLADE GORTON: Assuming that the recommendations that you made in... on January 25 of 2001 based on blue sky, including aid to the northern alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two-and-a-half years without any action, assuming that there had been more predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, the year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
RICHARD CLARKE: No.
Unequivocal. The person in charge of counter-terrorism up to the very date that the Bush administration started CONFIRMED that 9/11 was already irreversibly in motion. The opportunity to stop it had already passed.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here.
If the erosion of your freedoms really concerns you then you should be concerned about the fact that the Commission charged with investigating what happened wasn't given the full freedom to investigate it. You should care that more money was spent investigating why the Challenger blew up, or investigating Clinton's blow job than was spent investigating 9/11/01. Our government has been into messy, black ops stuff for a LONG time... from over throwing popularly elected governments and causing coups (Iran), to supporting oppressive military dictators (Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam), to all sorts of nastiness with drugs (Iran Contra, CIA ops). I'm not saying that the government planned and executed 9/11... that's crazy talk. The government has been covering up any sort of investigation into what really took place though. There has been so much crazy shit that our government has been involved with over the last fifty years that is finally coming home to roost that they can't let it get out. bin Laden was a CIA asset. Saddam was an allie of the United States. The fact of the matter is that our government has made some REALLY BAD foreign policy decisions that have alienated and pissed off a huge portion of the population of the world. At this point in the game the government needs to keep up the facade that they can "protect" us from evil terrorists while concealing the fact that the "evil terrorists" want to attack us because of what the government has been doing since before I was even born.
It baffles me that you can say that you care about the erosion of our freedom and liberty here at home, yet at the same time call me into question for questioning what has taken place since 9/11. Everything that is going on with the erosion of our freedoms is BASED ON 9/11. 9/11 is used as the justification for all of the nonsense that is taking place with the PATRIOT Act, suspension of habeus corpus, wiretaps and everything else.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.
In the UK we have a tradition of bipartisanship over this sort of stuff - it's something which the opposition is briefed over and is normally exempt from political sniping, unlike domestic issues which are fair game. Like most UK stuff it's not official - the two halves of the establishment essentially have an agreement not to argue in public about things that seriously threaten them. It works pretty well in practice though - in WWII when the UK was in dire danger of invasion they agreed form a coalition government, suspend elections, lock up Nazi sympathizers, censor the press and have a planned economy. Once the war was won all this was reversed and elections were held, which Churchill lost. Arguably in the London bombings there was at least some hint of this - the shoot to kill policy by the police was bipartisan and when it killed the wrong person and was thus clearly untenable the decision to stop it was also bipartisan. But counter terrorism policy is still something which is handled by a sort of hypervisor composed of Labour and the Conservative front benches and the spooks rather than by the normal adversarial system where they each compete and criticise each other openly.
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying Bush is above criticism, but the era of 'working together' on foreign policy is over. Even Harry Reid is ignoring the evidence of the current surge in Iraq actually working and instead saying it's a failure because it doesn't meet his expectations, whatever those are in his capacity as a representative of Nevada.
Sadly, since they tried to tag Viet Nam as "Nixon's War" (despite Dick not getting involved until it had been going on for almost 6 years) foreign policy has been extremely volatile in the US.
I was hoping that when the Baby Boomers died we would have a return to common sense.
Current political commentary on
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:4, Insightful)
What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?
You should try reading [kuro5hin.org]. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming thi
Re:congrats to wikileak (Score:5, Insightful)
What should worry ppl is what is NOT being seen. In those dark rooms, is where we should be casting a light.
Why I hate Colbert... (Score:5, Funny)
And if you do believe it, maybe you should watch the Colbert Report anyway. I bet you wouldn't realize it's a joke.
Re:Why I hate Colbert... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:prohibited! (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay do 500 pushups and tell me that isn't punishment. Run 20 miles with no water and tell me that isn't punishment.
Actually excessive exercise is a pretty effective form of torture. There is a line between torture and punishment. Three days in solitary confinement is a punishment. Six years could be torture. Being given 20 push ups to do is punishment for a solder. two hundred
For the average Slashdot reader two push ups might be a violation of their human rights
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.
Conservative? LIberal?` (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."
Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:prohibited! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?
Re: (Score:2)
The military isn't just a fighting force, it's a gigantic bureaucracy - one famous for having rules and procedures spelled out in such painstaking detail that any person with the ability to read can follow them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)