I have a few recently unclassified documents that have come to my attention that I want to share with you. Even the excerpts that I have chosen are a little lengthy (it is government-speak after all), but I think the information is important enough to get it out there.
The following document addresses the legal justification for using U.S. military troops on American soil against American citizens.
Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States [selected excerpts]:
Because the scale of the violence involved in this conflict removes it from the sphere of operations designed to enforce the criminal laws, legal and constitutional rules regulating law enforcement activity are not applicable.... As a result, the uses of force contemplated in this conflict are unlike those that have occurred in America's other recent wars. Such uses might include, for example; deploying troops and military equipment to monitor and control the flow of traffic into a city; attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings or offices; and employing electronic surveillance methods more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies. These military operations, taken as they may be on United States soil, and involving as they might American citizens, raise novel and difficult questions of constitutional law.
For example, the September 11 attacks were both acts of war and crimes under United States law. Future terrorist incidents could continue to have both aspects. If the President were to deploy the Armed Forces within the United States in order to engage in counter-terrorism operations, their actions could resemble, overlap with, and assist ordinary law enforcement activity. Military action might encompass making arrests, seizing documents or other property, searching persons or places or keeping them under surveillance, intercepting electronic or wireless communications, setting up roadblocks, interviewing witnesses, and searching for suspects. Moreover, the information gathered in such efforts could be of considerable use to federal prosecutors if the Government were to prosecute against captured terrorists.
Our forces must be free to "seize" enemy personnel or "search" enemy quarters, papers and messages without having to show "probable cause" before a neutral magistrate, and even without having to demonstrate that their actions were constitutionally "reasonable." They must be free to use any means necessary to defeat the enemy's forces, even if their efforts might cause collateral damage to United States persons. Although their conduct might be governed by the laws of war, including laws for the protection of noncombatants, the Fourth Amendment would no more apply than if those operations occurred in a foreign theater of war.
Nor is it necessary that the military forces on our soil be foreign. Suppose that an armed and violent group of United States citizens seized control of a part of the country or of one of the territories, and declared itself independent.... Federal Armed Forces must be free to use force to put down this insurrection without being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, even though force would be intentionally directed against persons known to be citizens.
This document discusses the use of drugs to break detainees. Even U.S. citizens (detained indefinitely, without charge, without legal representation, without prisoner of war protections under the Geneva Convention) could be administered these drugs.
Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Policy and Research: Drug Abuse: An Exploration of the Government's Use of Mefloquine at Guantanamo [selected excerpts]:
Mefloquine is an antimalarial drug that has long been known to cause severe neuropsychological adverse effects such as anxiety, paranoia, hallucinations, aggression, psychotic behavior, mood changes, depression, memory impairment, convulsions, loss of coordination (ataxia), suicidal ideation, and possibly suicide, particularly in patients with a history of mental illness. A prescribing physician must exercise caution and informed judgment when weighing the risks and potential benefits of prescribing the drug. To administer this drug with its severe potential side effects without a malaria diagnosis and without taking a patient’s mental health history is not medically justified. Yet as a matter of official policy, the standard operating procedure implemented by the United States military at Guantanamo Bay was to administer high doses of mefloquine to detainees whether or not any use of the drug was medically appropriate and without consideration of the detainees’ mental health.
This Report demonstrates that the U.S. military routinely administered doses of mefloquine to detainees upon their arrival at GTMO without medical justification: 1250 mg of mefloquine was given to all detainees as a standard measure during inprocessing. This Report further demonstrates that the U.S. military knew, and any competent medical professional would have known, of the severe side effects caused by mefloquine: Mefloquine was first developed by the United States military. As early as 1955, and possibly earlier, the CIA was experimenting with quinolines, the chemical family to which mefloquine belongs, as part of MKULTRA, a program of research in behavioral modification that studied psychotropic drugs for use as a weapon and interrogation tool. The U.S. military was aware of the risk of severe adverse neuropsychological effects of mefloquine before the establishment of the GTMO detention facility. The stated aim of the study was to “understand the mechanism of such states as toxic delirium, uremic coma, and cerebral toxicity from poisoning.” The potential use of these drugs in an interrogation setting was a stated purpose for the study.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no malaria in Cuba. “Malaria is not a threat in Guantanamo Bay,” according to an official memorandum on the “Department of Defense Operational Use of Mefloquine.” U.S. military personnel and contractors are not prescribed any anti-malarial medication for assignment to GTMO. Because GTMO is not a malaria zone, administration of mefloquine is not indicated for prophylactic use. This raises the question of why mefloquine was given to every detainee without first determining whether he had malaria or not and without taking a medical history first.
Mefloquine was given in order to bring about the adverse effects for one of three reasons. Any of these would likely satisfy the legal definition of torture as articulated by the Department of Justice in 2002.
As part of a program of enhanced interrogation, the psychotropic effects of mefloquine may have been intended as an aid to breaking a detainee’s resistance. This would be the psychological equivalent of waterboarding.
As part of an experimental study to gather data on the side effects of mefloquine.
As a punitive measure.
This chilling document speaks of establishing concentration camps for U.S. citizens and using them for forced labor. I do not need to draw comparisons, do I?
Army Regulation 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program [selected excerpts]:
This regulation provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations. Sources of civilian inmate labor are limited to on– and off–post Federal corrections facilities, State and/or local corrections facilities operating from on–post prison camps pursuant to leases under Section 2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667), and off–post State corrections facilities participating in the demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103–337.
Civilian inmate labor programs benefit both the Army and corrections systems by: Providing a source of labor at no direct labor cost to Army installations to accomplish tasks that would not be possible otherwise due to the manning and funding constraints under which the Army operates. Providing meaningful work for inmates and, in some cases, additional space to alleviate overcrowding in nearby corrections facilities. Making cost–effective use of buildings and land not otherwise being used.
This final document, in a very matter of fact way, talks about torture.
Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies [selected excerpts]:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Task Force
SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies
PROBLEM: The current guidelines for interrogation procedures at GTMO limit the ability of interrogators to counter advanced resistance. Request approval for use of the following interrogation plan.
Category I techniques. During the initial category of interrogation the detainee should be provided a chair and the environment should be generally comfortable. The format of the interrogation is the direct approach. The use of rewards like cookies or cigarettes may be helpful. If the detainee is determined by the interrogator to be uncooperative, the interrogator may use the following techniques.
Yelling at the detainee (not directly in his ear at the level that it would cause physical pain or hearing problems)
Techniques of deception:
Multiple-interrogator techniques.
Interrogator identity. The interviewer may identify himself as a citizen of a foreign nation or as an interrogator from a country with a reputation for harsh treatment of detainees.
Category II Techniques. With the permission of the OIC, Interrogation Section, the interrogator may use the following techniques.
The use of stress positions....
The use of falsified documents or reports
Use of the isolation facility for up to 30 days. Request must be made to the OIC, Interrogation Section, to the Director, Joint Interrogation Group (JIG). Extensions beyond the initial 30 days must be approved by the Commanding General. For selected detainees, the OIC, Interrogation Section, will approve all contacts with the detainee, to include medical visits of a non-emergent nature.
Interrogating the detainee in an environment other than the standard interrogation booth.
Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli
The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning. The hood should not restrict breathing in any way and the detainee should be under direct observation when hooded.
The use of 20 hour interrogations.
Removal of all comfort items (including religious items).
Switching the detainee from hot rations to MREs.
Removal of clothing.
Forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc...)
Using detainees individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress.
Category III techniques. Techniques in this category may be used only by submitting a request through the Directory, JIG, for approval by the Commanding General with appropriate legal review and information to Commander, USSOUTHCOM. These techniques are required for a very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees (less than 3%). The following techniques and other aversive techniques, such as those used in U.S. military interrogation resistance training or by other U.S. government agencies, may be utilized in a carefully coordinated manner to help interrogate exceptionally resistant detainees. Any of these techniques will be administered only by individuals specifically trained in their safe application.
The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family.
Exposure to cold weather or water (with appropriate medical monitoring).
Use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation.
All this coming soon to a FEMA camp near you.
"Honor Bound To Defend Freedom"
No comments:
Post a Comment