« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Data Mining NAVY Emails on Domestic POW Abuses
The ACLU released emails about abuses at domestic US prisons. Here is a summary.
Page 13:
June 2002: "we are seeing the very highest levels of Government
considering the answers" Refers to "unopened" legal correspondence
linked with SecDef, DoD General Counsel. Recall, Addington, Rizzo, and Chertoff visited; and Rice disclosed meeting with Addington. Recall, DoD emails disclose former White House counsel involvement with military briefings.
Page 16: CIA and DHS interrogations. DOJ litigation team mentioned. Page 17: CIA DC office discussed written authorization. Where are these written authorizations?
Page 13: "We control the media" at Guantanamo. (They hoped to keep the medical personnel out of the situation, breaching Geneva.)
Page 14: June 24, 2002: Includes Dataline Incorporation, a contractor providing cost estimates, and comments on a statement of work (SOW). This indicates a high level acquisition program within the Department of the NAVY, and should have been known to Members of Congress. FISC is Fleet and Industrial Supply Center. Prisoners were moved to solitary confinement during contractor visit.
Page 15:
June 28, 2002: Disclosure of CCTV system. How long have Congressional
legal known about this recording system; and why no timely action to
safeguard before US Government destroyed the tapes? Page 16: CCTV installation progress, fixed cost duress alarm system ($ 1927.40, trace this through NAVSEA)
Use this comment thread to share your findings from the emails released to the ACLU.
Page 5 The emails mention military messages not previously disclosed. Pubic defenders in 2002 were aware of legal issues, but the US government has known since 2001 that the POWs could bring suits in court [Philbin memo, Dec 28, 2001].
Page 8 mentions a post card sent via the US mail and scanned on page 11.
Page 15: Legal correspondence for POW discussed. From Clerk, US district court (Eastern District, VA).CMAT is Command Manpower Analysis Team.
Page 18: CNRMA is Commander, NAVY region Mid-Atlantic.
Page 9 mentions "CINC" which is presumably not the President, because the message refers to a Deputy CINC.
Page 9: CLF is Combat Logistics Forces
TAD is temporary additional duty.
LIMDU is limited duty
Page 13 refers to "Penuckle" [sp], apparently a card game.
Comments (11)
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.
October 10, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
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 2 is different, where the dash, before a space, is four-letters for a name, not three spaces in Sample 1.
October 10, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
See page 8 and 11 for other comments on scanned mail: 85 shows the ICRC documents.
Note the PDF file:
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
October 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
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).
October 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment II of II
B. Acronym
SHU: Special Housing Unit
C. Possible Other use
Consider the following which also uses "SHU staff":
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":
October 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
October 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
JDG: Joint Detention Group
False argument, confusion
84: 12:05
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.
October 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
65 SPIRNET comment shows there are other emails in the classified DoD information systems.
October 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
64 Attorney-client boilerplate statement.
October 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing ,
This further reflects just how pervasive the torture mentality took root in our civilian and miltary national command structure - this really reflects poorly on we Americans collectively as an free and democratic society .
October 11, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment