Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 book.
Happy reading Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Human Intelligence Collector Operations FM 2-22.3 Pocket Guide.
Do any of the procedures include a medical assessment? If so, please inform about the results of these. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercions, and physical abuse. Nothing in the Army Field Manual, to include Appendix M, authorizes or condones the use of sleep manipulation or sensory deprivation.
Furthermore, Gross made clear that any sleep regulation would need to adhere to the other overarching guidelines on human treatment contained in the Manual and other binding US and international law:. For example, Mr. Bruni, you mention the language in Appendix M that states that the use of separation must not preclude the detainee from getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours and questioned whether that would be adequate over a day period. First, this standard must, of course, be applied consistently with all applicable legal, regulatory and policy principles and guidelines which provide that all prisoners and detainees, regardless of status, will be treated humanely.
Gross indicated that this requirement of humane treatment would ensure that the 4-hour limitation would not be applied over the course of 30 days or even over two consecutive days:.candmarcehor.tk
Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM / ) | | Bookbyte
The four-hour standard is not a daily limit but rather a minimum standard. It is certainly not intended to mandate, for example, days of separation with only 4 hours of sleep per day. Nor would it allow 40 continuous hours of interrogation with only four hours of sleep on either end. As the Manual states, in attempting to determine if a contemplated technique or approach should be considered prohibited, consider whether if the proposed technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, you would believe your soldier had been abused.
Now, four hours sleep is indicated, by, I know—it is a minimum standard. But a minimum standard means that it can be applied. It is legal to have four hours of sleep for a person under interrogation. It is permissible, so it can be done, for thirty days, and more, because this [restriction] can be removed. So the question remains the same. Four hours of sleep equal[s] deprivation of sleep, so my suggestion is that this Annex M of the Military Interrogation Manual [sic] be simply deleted from the Manual.
You ask about the sleep deprivation, so I want to go over that again. As I stated before, you cannot read the four-hour standard in isolation. So it is simply not just a four-hour standard but that taken in context.
And we monitor detainees very carefully: medical monitoring, psychological monitoring, to ensure that their mental and physical health is good. And legal advisers monitor their treatment constantly as well, to ensure that it is humane, legal, and so forth.
Gross eventually provided more granularity for when Field Expedient Separation is utilized, although could not provide any empirics for lack of data:. Sir, you ask about the field expedient separation. And my apologies for not answering that earlier. With regard to that, this is a very tactical decision made at the point of capture, typically at an objective. And, so, that technique—much like, as I told Mr. Bruni, for sleep, for example, you would have to take that in context of our entire body of law—domestic and international law—and policy. As noted above, Gross conveyed that all interrogations are monitored to ensure compliance.
Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski, of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, returned to this topic and noted that the Manual provides not just a set of prohibitions, but also a closed list of permissible techniques:. I know of no other country that requires its national security and intelligence agencies to limit themselves to a specific set of interrogation methods that are publicly listed on a website.
Moreover, Malinowski noted that the specificity with which the Manual governs interrogation techniques is unique as compared to other nations whose policies are as transparent:. As I mentioned yesterday, we now arguably have more detailed and specific regulations barring abusive interrogations than any other country on Earth.
FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations
Some are so specific that they inevitably spark more questions, like minimum sleep requirements for detainees, or rules governing how prisoners can be separated from each other on the battlefield—all of which we have been happy to try to answer today. In response, and with respect to the reach of the Field Manual, Gross clarified that although the Field Manual may only technically govern the Department of the Army and ancillary civilians and contractors:.
Guidelines in the Army Field Manual are consistent with U. In response to a more pointed question about whether the CIA is bound by the guidelines in the Field Manual, Gross stated:. You also ask whether the CIA agents had to follow the requirements of the Army Field Manual and whether they are included in the same training as law enforcement agents.
Under the Executive Order , President Obama mandated that all interrogations be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Army Field Manual, including those done by the CIA. And the CIA itself ensures itself that its officers are aware of these requirements. Malinowski closed with a discussion of the willingness of the United States to constantly strive to improve its policies and practices:. That is the most important fact we wish to report to this Committee. That is what enables us to champion the eradication of torture everywhere in the world.
For the reasons outlined above, revising Appendix M offers an opportunity to continue this rigorous process of self-reflection and reform. Dodge and Ingrid Wuerth. Castleberry and Camille Stewart. Lee Wolosky and Sam Kleiner. Dunlap, Jr. Bradley , Oona Hathaway and Jack Goldsmith. State Department.
All views are her own. Member of the editorial board of Just Security. Follow her on Twitter BethVanSchaack. September 18, by Irvin McCullough. September 17, by Kel McClanahan. September 13, by Ambassador Donald Steinberg. September 3, by Joshua Geltzer and Ryan Goodman. August 6, by Katrina Mulligan.
August 1, by Jefferson Morley. July 25, by Linda Moon. July 19, by Viola Gienger. July 1, by Felice D. June 26, by Deborah M.
Weissman and Juan E. The authors conclude: Ill treatment during captivity, such as psychological manipulations, humiliating treatment, and forced stress positions, does not seem to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the severity of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanism of traumatic stress, and their long-term psychological outcome.
Shop by category
In a study of the effect of psychological torture, Physicians for Human Rights listed the following possible impacts of psychological torture : memory impairment, reduced capacity to concentrate, somatic complaints such as headache and back pain, hyperarousal, avoidance, and irritability. The Inter-American Convention for the Prevention of Torture is more express than the CAT in recognizing the damage that forms of psychological manipulation can cause: Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
Although on its face the Field Manual only governs Department of the Army and certain other DoD interrogators, the Manual does note that non-DOD agencies [read: CIA] [are required] to observe the same standards for the conduct of interrogation operations and treatment of detainees when in DOD facilities. Appendix M The Manual contains several appendices addressed to, among other topics, the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, an intelligence reliability matrix, a guide for handling detainees and seized documents, and the use of contractors, among others.
According to the Appendix, Separation involves: removing the detainee from other detainees and their environment, while still complying with the basic standards of humane treatment and prohibitions against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in the Detainee Treatment Act of and addressed in Common Article III [of the Geneva Conventions]. The Manual also provides that As a last resort, when physical separation of detainees is not feasible, goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs may be utilized as a field expedient method to generate a perception of separation.
By contrast, sensory deprivation is deemed prohibited. The Manual defines sensory deprivation as an arranged situation causing significant psychological distress due to a prolonged absence, or significant reduction, of the usual external stimuli and perceptual opportunities. The Manual does not explain how Field Expedient Separation is distinct from sensory deprivation. Specifically: Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours. The Manual outlines several safeguards for the use of Separation.
For one, Separation will only be used during the interrogation of specific unlawful enemy combatants for whom proper approvals have been granted [and] at Combatant Command-approved locations. However, [t]his limit on duration does not include the time that goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs are used on detainees for security purposes during transit and evacuation. That said, advanced [p]lanning must consider the possible cumulative effect of using multiple techniques and take into account the age, sex, and health of detainees, as appropriate. The Manual acknowledges that separation poses a higher risk to the detainee than do standard techniques, and so require strenuous oversight to avoid misapplication and potential abuse.