Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI's Secret Interrogation Manual: Now At the Library of Congress

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the closed-stacks-though dept.

Government 102

McGruber writes "The FBI Supervisory Special Agent who authored the FBI's interrogation manual submitted the document for copyright protection — in the process, making it available to anyone with a card for the Library of Congress to read. The story is particularly mind-boggling for two reasons. First, the American Civil Liberties Union fought a legal battle with the FBI over access to the document. When the FBI relented and released a copy to the ACLU, it was heavily redacted — unlike the 70-plus page version of the manual available from the Library of Congress. Second, the manual cannot even qualify for a copyright because it is a government work. Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."

cancel ×

102 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Key paragraph (5, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45761803)

"A document that has not been released does not even need a copyright," says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "Who is going to plagiarize from it? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't violate the copyright because you don't have the document. It isn't available."

"The whole thing is a comedy of errors," he adds. "It sounds like gross incompetence and ignorance."

It's genius, all the way down.

Re:Key paragraph (4, Informative)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 8 months ago | (#45762287)

Other key information-
"
The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by the FBI's "clean" teams—investigators who collect information intended for use in federal prosecutions. That raises the question of whether teams collecting information that's not for use in federal courts would have to follow the manual's (already permissive) guidelines at all.

Another section, blacked out in the version provided to the ACLU, encourages FBI agents to stage a "date-stamped full-body picture" of a detainee, complete with a bottle of water, for use in refuting abuse allegations at trial.
"

Re:Key paragraph (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45762431)

Something to keep in mind is that different people play by different rules, and not everyone that is claimed to be "innocent" is in fact innocent and/or truthful.

Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay [defense.gov]

The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison." ...

Butler said the Manchester document includes "a large section which teaches al Qaeda operatives counterinterrogation techniques: how to lie, how to minimize your role."

The document, he said, has surfaced in various locations, including Afghanistan.

More Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees Return To Terrorism [weeklystandard.com]

Of the 603 former detainees tracked by US intelligence services, a total of 100 have now been confirmed as reengaging in "terrorism" or "insurgent" activities, while another 74 are suspected of reengaging. This brings the total rate of recidivism to nearly 29 percent, up from 28 percent as of the last report six months ago.

I would also like to know what was claimed as a "favorable references to the KUBARK manual" since electric shock or other forms of torture would not be acceptable methods of interrogation in a criminal investigation, and would seem to have little relevance.

As to another point, gathering information for intelligence is to some degree a separate question from gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution. I expect that is where the "clean teams" comment came in.

Re:Key paragraph (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762483)

(Shrug) More power to them. I know that if I weren't a terrorist before being locked up in Gitmo without a trial, I'd certainly become one if they ever turned me loose.

Re:Key paragraph (3, Interesting)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 8 months ago | (#45762567)

Who knows, maybe that's the whole point? They didn't have enough hate to justify the trillions so they are manufacturing it. Might be taking it a bit far... Certainly Gitmo hasn't earned the US much respect as responsible caretakers of the "free world".

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45766019)

Well, considering that terrorism tends to help those in charge by providing moral ground to do whatever in exchange for non structural damage, I would too consider detention places as terrorist factories until proven otherwise, especially with the policies that have been emerging.

Re:Key paragraph (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762799)

(Shrug) More power to them. I know that if I weren't a terrorist before being locked up in Gitmo without a trial, I'd certainly become one if they ever turned me loose.

Really? You so enjoyed your stay you are looking forward to going back for an even longer stay, perhaps a permanent stay?

If you were innocent before Gitmo and Gitmo turned you to terrorism then you probably had very strong pro terrorist tendencies from the beginning. It merely nudged you over a line you were pretty close to.

If you had been a moderate muslim who had a good understanding of the koran and recognized al queda and its terrorism for the sinful behavior that it is then Gitmo would not turn you into a terrorist.

Re:Key paragraph (5, Insightful)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45763353)

How about some other type "collateral damage" inflicted by the incompetence of the United States government and its allies? How about if you watched a hellfire missile destroy your daughter's or son's wedding party? Or you were the groom and survived the attack that ripped your bride apart, literally limb from limb? And the U.S. government stuck with its "surgical precision" claims and that civilian casualties are vanishingly small?

Try that in Texas... hell, try it in any state in the union. A foreign aggressor who pulled that on Americans would without doubt create new "terrorists" more quickly than they could kill them.

Re:Key paragraph (1, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45764127)

Try that in Texas... hell, try it in any state in the union. A foreign aggressor who pulled that on Americans would without doubt create new "terrorists" more quickly than they could kill them.

No, a foreign aggressor that did that would be in a war, just like al Qaida is. Yet somehow you fault the US for defending itself in this case. There is a key difference between the US and Pakistan, for example. The US government controls all of its own territory whereas Pakistan's central government does not. The tribal territories in Pakistan are largely outside the control of the central government. That is where various guerillas and terrorists flourish. That is where much of the drone activity that you decry occurs. There are without a doubt occasional mistakes made in targeting, but the US has made efforts to avoid that, and probably has caused much less collateral damaged that most wars in the past. The Pakistani army has a view about that.

Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome [wired.com]

There is an unacknowledged asymmetry in your grievance. You only complain about the occasional random mistake by the US, but you have nothing to say about the regular, planned, and deliberate brutality of the Taliban and al Qaida, including at weddings.

17 Beheaded in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan for Attending Wedding Party with Dancing [joemiller.us]

A massacre of 17 deliberate beheadings at a wedding versus the unfortunate rare accidental strike on a wedding. The regular occurrence, versus the rare occurrence. Do you think that the Taliban should worry about its wedding massacres too? Or just the US?

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764163)

So you're saying not to get married in durka-durkastan?

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764179)

Why should he need to provide any kind of reference to the other side?
all he did was say "america do bad things." he did not say "but the taliban an aq are nice", or even attempt to condone their acts.
he then said that when usa attacks a civilian family, does it really surprise anyone that this person turns against usa? he then tried to turn the argument around to make a simili which was slightly flawed, but still made a point about protecting those close to you or your country.
And it should be ovbious to you that even in war, usa cant just run around killing civilans, even if they think its ok as long as they deny it publicly. so yes, such events are indeed americas fault, agressor or not.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45764191)

If you follow the argument from before his post, he is trying to claim that fighting against terrorism causes terrorism. He is trying to claim that the terrorists being held in Gitmo were created by fighting against al Qaida and / or the Taliban. That is clearly wrong since they existed before the US attacked Afghanistan, and al Qaida has often been an unwelcome "guest" in the tribal territories. Regrettable things happen in war, that is why it should be avoided.

Re:Key paragraph (3, Insightful)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45764225)

"Regrettable things happen in war..."

Thank you for plainly displaying the mindset that makes so many people hate the U.S. and prolong this "war" on terrorism with negligent and morally bankrupt tactics.

My point stands - if you slaughter people, expect more of them to hate you. Your argument, "well the Taliban is worse!" doesn't pass the laugh test.

Also, your claim that I or any of the parent posters said the "terrorists being held in Gitmo were created by fighting against al Qaida and / or the Taliban" is simply a lie. Try to argue without strawmen. Mine, and the other points being made were, "if you slaughter people or imprison them unjustly, they will turn against you", but I guess that's inconvenient to your ideological embrace of repugnant tactics.

Re:Key paragraph (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45764419)

The morally bankrupt tactics are on the part of al Qaida and its associates who deliberately slaughter noncombatants by many means. The blinkered views of some in the West are of aid to them.

You are fundamentally confused about the source of the war against al Qaida - it is their decision, they declared war [pbs.org] and began attacks killing many people [cnn.com] years before the US made a serious response. They want a war of conquest. They want to restore the "glory of Islam" by restoring the Caliphate government [spiegel.de] that was dissolved in 1924 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and starting a world-wide conflict to bring all nations to the Muslim faith under Islamic rule. They want to take back lands formerly governed by Muslims, including the country of Spain, and al Qaida is not alone in that goal.

Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest" [jihadwatch.org]
HAMAS Targets Spain [frontpagemag.com]

Please explain to me how it is the fault of the US that al Qaida and Hamas want to reconquer Spain?

This is about them, not about the US. You are simply mistaken.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 8 months ago | (#45765357)

It is about both sides. You cannot claim moral superiority if you do things that are widely considered immoral. This is not to say that some of the poeple protesting US have no agenda or are just plain silly or mistaken.

Look at a conflict that lies in distant past. In Vietnam US did despikable things. Vietcong did even more despicable things but US tried to have a moral high ground. The only thing that happend in the West was that people looked at this and said - we do not like what is being done in our name because it is immoral. If so then the other side must be moral (which is just silly) - hell I still have friends happily admitting that they supported murderers from the north. Simillarily here - if you want support from people you have to act in a proper way. It may just be that the case is lost anyway. I personally do not think any amount of good will and help can fix the hate some in Arab but also generally in Muslim world feel against so called West. Still keeping people in legal limbo is not doing your country any good.

Re:Key paragraph (2)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45766403)

At this point, we're talking past each other, because you deliberately started by claiming I said something I didn't. My point is that we are motivating people who would otherwise not take up arms against the U.S. or its allies with tactics that are repugnant and illegal, that is, killing civilians in countries with which we are not at war, and keeping demonstrably innocent people (along with some real monsters) in a gulag.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are bad - committing the inevitable "collateral damage" of slaughtering innocents with flying robot bombers is also bad. The U.S. has lost its way again, like we did during the Vietnam war.

You are either blinkered or heartless in your support of these tactics, but even worse, you're just plain wrong that they are effective.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45766713)

The U.S. has lost its way again, like we did during the Vietnam war.

I tend to feel like the US never found its way back, after Vietnam.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 8 months ago | (#45770351)

Muslims want to take over the world in the footsteps of Christianity's crusades. There is always more than one side to an issue. For the past 300 years (and much before). Christian theology has had the objective of subduing and converting the rest of the world and has utilized capitalism as it's driving force. In the past 100 years, the West has had designs on the world's resources regardless of the interests of indigenous peoples. A perfect example was the (nearly) secret accord between the U.S. and the ruling Arab family for the U.S. to provide the ruling family "security" in exchange for dirt cheap oil. That was why gas prices in the U.S. up until the mid 70's was 75 cents while the rest of the western nations were paying three or four times the U.S. rates. It wasn't until Arabia was forced into OPEC by the other major oil producing middle east nations because of their opposition to the Six Day War. American military has even been used by international (originally U.S. based) corporations to force indigenous people off their land for access to free or nearly free oil in Africa, Indo-China, etc. Terrorism in large part has reached its breaking point as a result of U.S. (and Christian) hegemony over the past 100 years. Third world peoples are merely tired of the world serving U.S. and Western interests. Ironically, it was the U.S. who have trained the terrorists that now rebel. We backed Hussein because it was in our interests to (attempting) the defeat of Iran. Why? For the oil. We've done the same over and over in our own short-term interests. We trained bin Laden in the Afghani war against the Soviets. Why? Didn't want the Soviets to gain better access to middle east oil. We taught them how to fight us. And now we're angry because they've taken what we taught them how to do to declare their independence from U.S. hegemony? You may assert that terrorists had no moral right to act on 9-11. That a lot of innocent people were killed. But in a democracy, the citizens cannot claim ignorance or righteousness for the despicable things done by their government (and industries) in their name. Ultimately a free people are in fact responsible for the acts (good or bad) done by it's people. Don't criticize the outrage on the part of other cultures and nations until you've walked in their shoes.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45770637)

This is about them, not about the US. You are simply mistaken.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

In any large group of people you're going to get outliers. Extremists in other words. It's a statistical inevitability and impossible to avoid in the real world.

Innumerate people, like you, who can't/won't do simple calculations of proportionate response are a large part of why these things escalate. Terrorism in the first world is pretty much a non-event. Billions of people and at most a few thousand people affected each year. Because of the US' grossly disproportionate response affecting millions they a currently breeding far more anti-US terrorists than would have existed otherwise.

And that happens at every level. For example the NSA with their extreme actions have created a whole bunch of enemies. Most hopefully non-violent but it's going to affect americans and the US economy negatively in a whole bunch of hidden and not so hidden ways. And because of the numbers involved it's probably going to be far more costly than whatever benefit the NSA might bring. Definitely not enlightened US self-interest; though it is driven in large part by the self-interest of the NSA and other select groups who are a tiny proportion of the overall population.

Re:Key paragraph (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 8 months ago | (#45765233)

My point stands - if you slaughter people, expect more of them to hate you.

Or even if you don't slaughter people directly, but support the dictatorships that repress them. These people do understand that it is the West who are supporting their tormenters, even if their own populations are not aware of the facts (in the case of the USA I guess this might be because many Americans don't actually follow international news).

This is why the "they hate us for our freedoms" tripe seems to actually fly with a lot of those folks. They seem to honestly not know what kind of brutal regimes their government is supporting and arming -- in their name, and on their dime.

Oh and off topic, but I can't help but notice that our Mr Fjord has changed his .sig. Interesting developmen -- before he was trying to appeal to civility to "guide moderators". Now he is suggesting - nay, threatening -- that if you call him out on his reflexive pro-NSA positions you will make yourself a target.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45767483)

By the way, your sig - I was shocked that we lost Iain M. Banks so quickly and so young. When I heard, I found the last couple of his Culture books that I hadn't read, and now there are no more for me. Inversions was one of the best, strangely because very little of Culture is visible in the novel.

Now I'll have to start on the books he authored as Iain Banks.

Re:Key paragraph (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45768201)

This is why the "they hate us for our freedoms" tripe seems to actually fly with a lot of those folks. They seem to honestly not know what kind of brutal regimes their government is supporting and arming -- in their name, and on their dime.

The tripe is being served up mainly by people on the Left. The extremist Islamists such as al Qaida directly state that they want to take over the world, convert the population to Islam, and implement Sharia law in every country. They want to take back formerly Muslim lands, such as Spain.

Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest" [jihadwatch.org]
HAMAS Targets Spain [frontpagemag.com]

They want to remove your freedom of worship or not worship, punishing any belief but Islamic belief to varying degrees. The general Muslim position has historically been that Christians and Jews are "People of the Book," close enough that they can be tolerated in Muslim lands, but heavily taxed to create an incentive towards conversion. Polytheists are a hated enemy to be converted, driven out, or killed. (The current extremists do not even want to make the traditional concession to Christians and Jews.) They want to use their religious law to remove your right to eat, drink, and read what you can now. They want to ban alcohol and pornography, for example. They want to remove freedom of expression and punish blasphemy, actively. They want to unify church and state as is the Islamic custom under the Calphate. They believe the problem their societies face will be solved not by digging more sewers and building more schools, but by chopping off more hands and heads. They want to bring that civilization to you, by force if necessary.

I'm not sure who you could miss that. If you have looked into the question at all you must have seen this. Do you reject it? How do you explain the stated desire to return Spain to Islamic rule by blaming the US? If you have looked into the question of extremist Islam in Europe, you know they have the same goal there for Europe. How do you blame that on the United States?

If you haven't noticed the US gets hated for acting and not acting at the same time. Don't interfere! You didn't interfere!

Of course there is little consistency among the Left on related questions. As a practical example, you can see how this operated in 1991 with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. There was essentially no protest in Europe's streets when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The protests came when the US worked to remove Saddam's army. Saddams' invasion wasn't treated as imperialism, or aggression, but removing it was.

As to my sig, I wasn't "guiding moderators" but reminding them that we are having a discussion here. That is hard to do if one viewpoint is removed from view simply because it is not your viewpoint. Some moderators took it to heart and the moderation of my posts become somewhat less harsh, although various intolerant ideologues continue to mod bomb me from time to time. Fascism isn't truly dead, merely resting, and some moderators seem to take it as a guiding principle for their use of mod points.

As to my current sig, I suggest you read it again. I am not "threatening" people taking a contrary position to mine but am doing something different. Do you need assistance in parsing it? I realize that English isn't your first language.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 8 months ago | (#45774949)

Sorry for late reply, hope you get notifications.

I am aware that there are extremist elements out there, Muslim and Christian alike -- and elsewhere of course. But I honestly don't think they'll be able to mobilize much support once they can't point to the West and truthfully say, look, they are supporting the regimes that repress us.

When someone like Ann Coulter says something like "we should invade their countries and forcefully convert then to Christianity", I hope most rational folks realize she is mad and don't take her seriously. I just don't see how the few nutjobs in Islam should be taken any more seriously.

And yes, English isn't my first language so perhaps I'm mistaken... But your sig still reads to me as suggesting to people who might want to express disagreement with your pro-NSA position to consider the consequences ("long term surveillance"). I don't actually think you believe there is a guardian angel inside NSA just for you. Which is why I don't get it, I suppose, except if you intend it as a rhetoric trick to stifle opposing views, which kind if clashes with your earlier sig, it seems to me.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#45775139)

...Ann Coulter says something like "we should invade their countries and forcefully convert then to Christianity.."

The complete quote was "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

It doesn't change the context of what you wrote; I just thought that murdering their leaders was a nice touch.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45765065)

You're an idiot. Get the fuck off Slashdot.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45765733)

Then how will even more clueless people like you learn?

Re:Key paragraph (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45762859)

Very few people can carry a grudge over the length of time you would be locked up in Gitmo before being released. Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning. [greaterswiss.com]

This is largely what stops wrongfully convicted people from retaliating outside of the legal system on those who did them wrong in the process (corrupt cop, witness IDs the wrong man, Lab tech mixes samples up and so on). By the end of your stay, you would be more likely to defend those people then to harm them in a semi sort of Stockholm syndrome way. It's why slaves in the south picked up arms to defend the masters who beat them or housed them in horrid conditions during the civil war.

Re:Key paragraph (2, Interesting)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 8 months ago | (#45762995)

"Your emotions would be going through a process a lot like the five stages of mourning. [greaterswiss.com]"

Aha! Yes, those were the exact stages I went through after realizing that the U.S. was just another torturing state and that all that BS they taught me in high school about how we were above all that was indeed BS.

Re:Key paragraph (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45763441)

Aha! Yes, those were the exact stages I went through after realizing that the U.S. was just another torturing state and that all that BS they taught me in high school about how we were above all that was indeed BS.

Funny that you mention "BS," since I smell some right now. The US only waterboarded a total of 3 terrorists, the most recent of which was 10 years ago, although it has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of its own service members. You're claiming that you changed your entire viewpoint, went through denial and grief because of that?

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA [go.com]

Holder on Waterboarding -- Proving It’s Not Torture While Insisting It Is [nationalreview.com]

You seem to have a perspective problem, at the very least, assuming you are maintaining your integrity in stating what you did.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764021)

Funny that you mention "BS," since I smell some right now. The US only waterboarded a total of 3 terrorists, the most recent of which was 10 years ago, although it has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of its own service members. You're claiming that you changed your entire viewpoint, went through denial and grief because of that?

You mean SERE candidates that volunteered vs POWs that were tortured?

On general principle I'd like to see you waterboarded to death. Just because.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45764067)

The "just because" is you may be a psychopath, simply evil, or both.

Key distinction (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 8 months ago | (#45764669)

by CIA

what about contractors?

foreign militaries like the Czech Republic?

and even if it's true that only 3 were waterboarded (which just seems ridiculous), one of those was Kalid Sheik Mohammed, and they waterborded him **every day** for 200 days in order to get him to confess to masterminding 9/11

how fucking reliable is that confession?

its not

even if it was just once it's too much b/c it **doesn't work** and we know this, look at our interrogation manuals from WWII...the interrogation was like an intervention practically...they were all lawyers, all spoke fluent German...done in a professional setting.

stop justifying and just accept what happened...

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45763375)

Sad but probably true. It's easy to talk tough on the Internet about how I would swear eternal vengeance against my captors and go full Monte Cristo on them, but yes, in the real world, I'd probably just be grateful for being released.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45763379)

The five stage of mourning don't end with "Be in agreement with those who wrongfully imprisoned you for years". What you're purporting has no basis in fact, isn't related to Stockholm syndrome, and is just downright silly.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45764051)

your right, it ends with acceptance- acceptance of the facts and dealing with them. You would be long past the anger stages wanting retribution unless you are somehow brainwashed into an ideology before being captive.

As for being silly, just about every freed wrongfully imprisoned person exhibits this reaction if they have been confined for any amount of time. It is not un-ordinary. While they might be angry, their reactions are not one of wanting to harm anyone.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45766801)

Great. So you're "past the anger stages" and you've arrived at "acceptance". You accept that they've done something vile and despicable to you, and you're no longer angry about it. Now you're calm, rational, and capable of planning retribution in great detail.

That sounds *so* much better than some pissed off angry guy going off ineffectively in an effort to make himself feel better.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45771471)

Actually, it is more like calm, rational, and capable of planning retribution in great detail that doesn't involve harming innocents or subjecting others to great injustices like you just went through. Like I said, if you have some sort of ideology brainwashed into you that involves harming innocents, it won't matter. For the rest, they will think before they act and take steps to avoid putting others through what they went through for the most part.

ACLU Criticism only (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45762513)

It appears we can only discuss ACLU criticism of the FBI manual, and in a favorable light at that. We cannot question the ACLU's criticism, we cannot see why it may not reflect all concerns, nor what other competing interests there are. Any perceived dissent must be smothered, for our "freedom."

Re:ACLU Criticism only (1)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 8 months ago | (#45762611)

It appears we can only discuss ACLU criticism of the FBI manual, and in a favorable light at that.

Oh get over it. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll when you disagree with that assessment. I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.

While your 'spin' on the meaning of the content may be plausible at first, the key angle is why the narrow redaction to the ACLU if truly there was no valid interpretation of the sort the ACLU and dissenters might jump to. The wonder of this discovery is in the DIFF between redacted and unredacted versions. That output of diff is what can shed the necissary light on sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45762845)

As to your first point, you are mistaken as to the purpose of moderation. Too many moderators make it their mission to suppress valid viewpoints in a discussion, ones they personally disagree with. That isn't the purpose. They should be moderating up good arguments, good data, even if they disagree with it. I've certainly done that in the past. Saying that "this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll" is a considerable understatement. I regularly get mod bombed for the simple act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress. You can't really have a good, reasoned debate when that happens. It makes it much harder to learn anything useful, or to change your mind, if you never encounter other viewpoints. If you think that there isn't considerable hostility to the "authority/FBI" side here I wouldn't need to look at your ID number to say, "Hi! You must be new here!"

As to your second point about redactions, the first redaction would conceal information about the structure of the FBI's counterintelligence apparatus. The second redaction protects a technique to limit fabrications by prisoners, the knowledge of which could lead to a new tactic for fabricating evidence. I have one in mind myself.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about 8 months ago | (#45764903)

I regularly get mod bombed for the simple act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but have you considered it might be because of how you phrase the view or evidence?

I've also from time to time posted minority views or evidence, but have never been modded down because of it. In fact, I'm generally always either unmodded or modded up for all my posts.

On the occasions I've been modded down, it's usually mixed with up-mods. For example, I'll often post something only slightly interesting, watch it go up to "+5 Interesting" and than down to around +3 from a couple of "Overrated" mods. This seems fair to me.

Wording is usually the culprit when people complain about unfair downmods. You should read your post back to yourself and consider if someone may be able to misinterpret it, or assign a 'mood' or 'feeling' to it that you didn't intend.

Of course, there is always also 'reputation' to take in to account. There are probably people who see "cold fjord" and immediately want to mod down. It sucks, but it happens. Perhaps try creating a second account, post a few replies with the same viewpoint that you'd normally use but be painstakingly careful about the wording. Then, if those get modded down, you may be right; but I suspect they won't be.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 8 months ago | (#45765281)

You regularly get mod-bombed because you're a fucking idiot who is presenting the most inane and stupid ideas, and you expect people to treat those ideas (and yourself) as if they had the same validity as actual sane (even if wrong) ideas.

A lot of people with different opinions get modded up on /. even if those opinions go against the 'group-think'. You, however, are either a troll, or just stupidly crazy (shaken too much as a baby?). Either way, you're opinions are not presented in a manner that justifies giving them anything but contempt.

Maybe if instead of sucking on the NSAs hypothetical cock/cunt so much, with such "oh yes, I love Big Brother", and your shit about "Al Qaida" being at war with the USA (and being so successful, that they have had one attack in the USA in the last 200 years, unlike the Christian fundamentalists who have had at least three that i can think of), and thus justifying bombing weddings, funerals, and anyone who looks at the drone funny, you just stuck to non-political subjects, you'd get on better. (I've seen +5 posts of yours, so it is possible.)

You are a caricature.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45762931)

I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.

What debate? If you are going to down mod one side in efforts to hide or censor their commentary, it really isn't a debate is it? We also know that with enough negative mods, posting replies become limited if not outright barred making it not a debate at all.

If the post itself is something other then I do not agree, mod away. If that is all it is, then refrain from moding as it only serves to censor the speech and if your views can only win by censoring others, you really need to rethink them. People will have a difference of opinion, difference of ideology, a difference in values, that's just part of life in a free world. Even what those differences irritate you.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45763049)

Well said.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (0)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 8 months ago | (#45763075)

> I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.

What debate? If you are going to down mod one side in efforts to hide or censor their commentary,

You jumped to the wrong conclusion obviously. My opinion is not the opinion of the person here who modded someone down. If you parse my grammar, you won't find me agreeing with the down-mod. What you'll find is apparently I've trolled you and c.f. into thinking I'm the new guy here, when I was trying to make a snarky 'you sound like the new guy here' even though it should be obvious to most that cold fjord is not the new guy here. I've been here over a decade, I've seen my pre-snowden takes on security downmodded brutally for years, in ways that I don't think would happen post-snowden.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45763259)

If you parse my grammar,

Don't bother, sumdumass is stupid as fuck, I wonder how he manages to stay alive.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (1, Offtopic)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45763381)

The only problem I had with your comment was the sentences I quoted. If that took the entirety of your comment out of context, I'm sorry. It was the principle of the content on those sentences I intended to address and I intended it to be open to others in moderating too.

That being said, I disagree with down moding your comments too. It isn't about what you said or what someone else said, down moding is not supposed to mean "I disagree" or "we better hide dissenting views to make out position stronger". It is supposed to remove the rubbish comments that are intended to disrupt debate so we can have a debate and communicate. It really does seem like there are some who do exist on this site to either push for or object to a specific ideology without care of the facts or objective opinions of others and I think that can be a dangerous thing. I also think it is pointless in calling it a debate when it happens- whether it is you, me, c.f. or anyone else being down modded.

Re:ACLU Criticism only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762971)

It seems on Sunday this place is mostly populated by slashdotters who hold a slavish devotion to their Authoritarian betters.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 8 months ago | (#45762615)

The FBI is a law enforcement organization (and.. counterintelligence, I think?) that operates domestically. The prisoners in Guantanamo are prisoners of war, captured on battlefields during.. um.. some kind of action, I guess.

Their disposition isn't really for the FBI to determine, as they weren't on US soil until we brought them here, so they couldn't have broken any US laws. Their military disposition however is interesting and apparently also politically quite treacherous. And not relevant to the FBI unless we're going to claim that they're accused of committing a US crime and are being prosecuted or otherwise going through the normal process that someone suspected of committing a crime goes through.

In which case, the principle of "presumption of innocence" comes into play. It's not that you simply assume someone is innocent, but that you treat them as if they are. You wouldn't use torture or other extreme interrogation techniques on an innocent person, so you shouldn't do it to someone who only "could be" innocent.

I'd like to see how these interrogation techniques stack up to the old, "sit in silence and wait for them to fill the void" technique.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45762977)

Their disposition isn't really for the FBI to determine, as they weren't on US soil until we brought them here, so they couldn't have broken any US laws.

The US imposes jurisdiction on any US entity anywhere in the world. This is why you see the US filing charges on foreign nationals who murder or rob US citizens in foreign lands. Likewise, any embassy, military base, ship or whatever in time of peace, the US imposes jurisdiction unless a previous agreement with a government has made it otherwise.

But to the point in which you used it, the context is spot on. I just wanted to point out that foreigners in foreign lands, can be subject to criminal prosecution in the US if the right set of circumstances exist.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45763815)

So, following the same logic, it is legitimate for any person to kill any US citizen for any arbitrary reason as a potential threat and enemy of everyone else.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45764007)

I don't know about legitimate, but if your intended goal is to face murder charges in the US, it is very possible.

Now back to reality, do not for a minute think that every person in the US accepts or even knows about what the US government is doing or capable of doing. But the US government does treat criminal acts against it's people as criminal acts commited in the US regardless of where that person is. The U.K.does also, Russia does, many countries do this. About the biggest difference is that through treaties or recognitions of laws and equitable criminal proceedings in those other nations, they may count the punishment in those other countries as satisfying their jurisdictional elements.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 8 months ago | (#45763523)

You can't know any of that because nobody is telling the public what's going on in GTMO.

What you're doing is parrotting Fox News.

What you're doing is subscribing to the fallacy that if someone is being detained they must have done something wrong.

Tell that to the Birmingham Six.

Fool.

Re:Key paragraph (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#45763661)

The only thing you have to do to be held as a POW is fight for the other side.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764255)

If I locked you up for years without trial, and then let you go with a "my bad", any hostile actions you engaged towards me afterwords would be both expected and justified. How many of these terrorism/insurgent acts would amount to defense anywhere else. I guess that's what you get when you run black-op, j-soc raids against people on edge defending themselves against the taliban every day (or night, rather). You can take McRaven's dick out of your mouth now, puppet.

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764479)

Hmmm, what's this? A butt-hurt Taliban or al Qaida supporter?

They can make a pick just like any other prisoner released during or after any war: live in peace, or else face the consequences. It is clear that many of the so-called "innocent" weren't innocent to begin with.

Do you want a mint for your breath problem?

in the course of official duties... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 8 months ago | (#45764071)

..but torture wasn't supposed to be official, so the thought he could copyright it!

Re:Key paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764487)

Last time I was picked up I tried using my right to shut the hell up and it got me an ass whooping.

leaks (5, Insightful)

svirre (39068) | about 8 months ago | (#45761807)

A useful way of leaking a document to the public while maintaining plausible deniability? The author may be sympathetic to ACLU.

Re:leaks (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 8 months ago | (#45762155)

That's what I thought when I read the original submission. You get it out to the public, and you have a defense if they decide to take you to court for leaking it.

Re:leaks (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762795)

More likely the FBI wanted to be able to charge anyone possessing or sharing it with copyright infringement.

Re:leaks (3, Funny)

Rich0 (548339) | about 8 months ago | (#45763849)

More likely the FBI wanted to be able to charge anyone possessing or sharing it with copyright infringement.

Makes sense. A few more years of RIAA lobbying and that will carry a heavier sentence than treason or espionage.

teepeeleaks etchings now in motion picture format (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45761907)

kevin arnett was the supervising 'author' on this BS buster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqUvhDG7x2E not for the weak of constitution

neetompaog

Mind boggling? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45761911)

Why is this mind boggling? It wasn't copyrighted, it was likely classified. And now is declassified. Conspiracy theory nuts piss me off.

Re:Mind boggling? (2)

lucm (889690) | about 8 months ago | (#45762033)

People who see conspiracy theory nuts everywhere are even worse than conspiracy theory nuts.

Does McGruber Hates America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45761977)

/AttitudeOn/ Why else would he take the time to write such a thing.

The manual cannot even qualify for a copyright because it is a government work. Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States.

Anyone working for the government have the same rights as the people including additional rights and privileges some of which are being able to decree changes when it's convenient. /AttitudeOff/

So... (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#45762029)

...where's the link to a PDF?

Re:So... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 8 months ago | (#45762303)

The document is available for review, but not scanning it, or even writing your own notes about it.

Because the two versions are similar, a side-by-side comparison allows a reader to deduce what was redacted in the later version. The copyright office does not allow readers to take pictures or notes, but during a brief inspection, a few redactions stood out.

Re:So... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 8 months ago | (#45762371)

The questions stands. Where is the .pdf?

Re:So... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#45762735)

So you're saying that all the teeny tiny CCD cameras available in shops in the recent years are completely useless? If this is not the case for having one of them at hand, I don't know what is.

Re:So... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#45763025)

Why go that far, just stuff it down your pants leg and sneak it out. Then destroy it so you don't get caught, and if you do, plead guilty for a $50,000 fine and some community service. That is all you need to do Mr. Sandy Berger.

Any volunteers with photographic memories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762843)

Just asking.

left hand didn't know? (4, Interesting)

bitingduck (810730) | about 8 months ago | (#45762071)

It could easily be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

In the Reynolds case that established the state secrets privilege of the executive branch, the government fought hard to not disclose the accident reports that the widows of civilian contractors were trying to obtain to show that the government had been negligent in maintenance of the aircraft and that they should therefore receive substantial awards. The case started in 1949, and ran into 1953 before it was finally closed by the supreme court in favor of the government.

In the meantime, a routine review in 1950 declassified the disputed reports from "secret" to "restricted", which is the equivalent of FOUO, which would have allowed the use of the reports in the case. Everyone involved in the case, from the plaintiffs up to the supreme court, and including all witnesses, was unaware of the declassification, which wasn't discovered until the 2000's. The case ran to its conclusion with everyone involved continuing to believe that the documents were classified. The case went on to be the legal basis for all future claims of state secrets privilege by the executive branch.

ref:http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliberties_state_secrets&timeline=civilliberties

Re:left hand didn't know? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762527)

No. This is clearly demonstrates that the system actually works. In spite of the hysterical bitching that people "classify documents to hide crimes", the classification criteria and declassification criteria are very rigid, it's a felony to illegally classify something that is unclasified, and the declassification review system works. In both of these cases, the redaction decisions were appropriate in the context they were made. The declassification decisions were also appropriate, and the information now has sunshine on it. There is no requirement levied upon the government to keep track of everyone who's interested in a document and tell them when it's declassified. In fact, there was a reform about 7-8 years ago I think (fuzzy memory) that moved a lot of things out of special categories and into the review cycle.

Re:left hand didn't know? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45763445)

In spite of the hysterical bitching that people "classify documents to hide crimes"

Except that's EXACTLY what the government did in U.S. v. Reynolds. The later findings of other courts that "well, the Soviets MIGHT have been able to learn something from the accident report" is a fucking load of bullshit, and is evident to anyone that's actually read the declassified documents.

Re:left hand didn't know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45766979)

No. It confirmed some sublte operational details that would have compromised classified data. The Russians were very good at putting together small pieces of information to suss out secrets. There are a lot of things that are, on the face of them, absurd to be classified. However, if you put enough of them together, the big picture is extremely sensitive. Yes, sometimes the serious research conspiracy theorist get it right from tiny little breadcrumbs.

What a waste of time. (1)

cHiphead (17854) | about 8 months ago | (#45762181)

Why the hell is there an article about the manual being found and not an article containing the portions of the manual that were previously redacted?

It's ignoring the meat to talk about the how the potatoes were picked at the farm.

Re:What a waste of time. (1)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 8 months ago | (#45762273)

Why the hell is there an article about the manual being found and not an article containing the portions of the manual that were previously redacted?

"
The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by the FBI's "clean" teams—investigators who collect information intended for use in federal prosecutions. That raises the question of whether teams collecting information that's not for use in federal courts would have to follow the manual's (already permissive) guidelines at all.

Another section, blacked out in the version provided to the ACLU, encourages FBI agents to stage a "date-stamped full-body picture" of a detainee, complete with a bottle of water, for use in refuting abuse allegations at trial.
"

Re:What a waste of time. (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about 8 months ago | (#45762557)

If I were sitting on a jury, and an FBI agent were testifying against the defendant, my first assumption would be that the FBI had concocted the caper in which the defendant was accused of participating. They've done it many times.

-jcr

Re:What a waste of time. (4, Insightful)

pupsocket (2853647) | about 8 months ago | (#45763055)

And that is why you will not sit on a jury. You mind has been polluted by experience and reading.

Re:What a waste of time. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 8 months ago | (#45763799)

The other reason is that I'm aware of the jury's prerogative to acquit a defendant, no matter how much the government wants him fucked over.

-jcr

Re:What a waste of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764439)

Just don't mention it during voir dire, generally don't say anything at all, and be prepared to be locked in a room with 11 angry people pressuring you for days to flip so they can go home.

Re:What a waste of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764965)

Pretensing the word you are looking for is pretensing and it used to be illegal as hell.

Re:What a waste of time. (2)

ciurana (2603) | about 8 months ago | (#45763443)

Howdy.

Works in the Library of Congress may be reviewed but not copied. The person(s) who reviewed this manual, and found the discrepancies, noted them and made them public. The original copyright holder must give permission for this work to be reproduced. That's why there are no copies, just mentions of the discrepancies.

Not sure without checking with my IP attorney how to get around this, since it's unlikely that the copyright holder will grant further copying permission. Perhaps a FOIA request to the Library of Congress will allow them to release the document?

Cheers!

Re:What a waste of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764521)

Copyright law permits small portions of a work to be copied. The fair-use doctrine also allows you a lot more leeway to reproduce a work if you're providing commentary or such on it.

PDF Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762229)

Will there be a copy available to read soon?

FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45762613)

So -- send a FOIA request to the copyright office?

Trying to gain additional control (2)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 8 months ago | (#45763341)

Sounds to me like some genius at the FBI was trying to gain additional control over that manual. If they could copyright it, they could issue DMCA take down notices to anybody hosting a copy of the manual when it finally does get out in unredacted form. Somebody who didn't know the law thought they could give themselves a club to use against sites publishing it. Too bad for them that it's not legal to copyright it.

Please bear that in mind, anybody who does publish it. You will probably get take down notices. Ignore them. They're illegal. If you're using third party hosting and your host removes it, file the counter notice immediately. The take down notice they receive will be illegal.

I'll bet a pizza that there will be at least one DMCA notice issued before somebody gets a handle on this idiot lawyer at the FBI.

Re:Trying to gain additional control (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 8 months ago | (#45769411)

Magnet links. Wonderful things.

ACLU have been poring over this since 2012 (2)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 8 months ago | (#45763397)

27 July 2012, to be precise: linky [aclu.org] [redacted PDF].
I'll post a link to the unredacted version if I can find a non-walled URL.

OK (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45763525)

"Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."

But if the data is sent to a private company who then processes it does that still apply.
Because the DoD is doing exactly that.

Re:OK (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 8 months ago | (#45763965)

This isn't DoD, it's FBI. But the answer to your question is that something prepared by a non-government company (contractors) can be copyrighted.

This manual isn't classified, but it was obviously a mistake to submit it for copyright.

Re:OK (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45764207)

I'm referring to the DoD using a private company for their video and photo storage, same issue less accessibility.

Still no copyright (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 8 months ago | (#45764111)

Copyright != classified. If you want to copyright something, you don't do it to keep it classified, but to prevent people making unauthorized copies of it (for profit). Publishing about the content is still legal and quoting is too, up till a certain degree, when it comes to copyright. When you want it classified, you don't want the contents in any form to become public. It's not about copies being made, but about the actual things that are in the document. Quoting or describing what's inside is prohibited then.

Gee lets sum it up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764031)

Get to know the subject before a Fscking..... did i miss anything?

This will be SOP (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45764235)

Then the next thing they will do is increase penalties for copyright violations for "national security".

This FP forw GNAA... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764259)

The easy way to understand how the FISC works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45764583)

1) Scopolamine your actual 9-11 victim, torture them to make them say things to sound like a terrorist and reveal classified secrets too.

2) Turn in your victim as a terrorist, get paid by the US governement as an informant for the torture you did.

3) Get a National Security Letter/ Pardon for what you did "for your ciountry".

4) Sell the victim's classified data/ideas to foreign countries, get paid by them too.

5) Sue your victim as well, take away any settlement through the use of more scopolamine.

Profit from treason.

Re:The easy way to understand how the FISC works.. (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 8 months ago | (#45769025)

[scopolamine's] use in medicine is relatively limited, with its chief uses being in the treatment of motion sickness and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Scopolamine has no side nor primary effects that would make it suitable for use as you claim. So, are you an idiot, or did you mean something else?

pics or it... (1)

Tom (822) | about 8 months ago | (#45764657)

Well, where is it? Post a torrent link or I don't believe you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>