Recent DoD Instructions

Only a few things to note. I suppose I could take the assumption that these things are improvements, but as I have yet to see heads rolling and have learned the hard way that these people hate freedom so much, I’m not going to.

Note: though I have linked to these at Cryptome, they are freely available at and the purpose is to release them to the public.

First, this one on Civil Liberties. Again, this is mostly assigning responsibilities for dealing with privacy and civil liberty issues (some of it for soldiers). I note, however, one obvious point on page 8:

5. IG, DOD. The IG, DOD, shall inform the DoD Civil Liberties Officer or the Deputy Civil Liberties Officer of its privacy and civil liberties activities in order to avoid duplication of effort…

Call me suspicious, but since when did the Department of Defense concern itself with duplicating effort? This is to know what cases the IG is working on and to report them up the chain of command. What happens after that, history tells us, is coverup at best. They not only stick their noses into what they admit is supposed to be an independent entity, the Inspector General, but have the option of saying, “We’re dealing with that, leave it alone.”

Also, we don’t have the references they mention as part of the PDF. Is it within the military’s power to “amend” the Inspector General Act of 1978?

See the previous section 4 also for how they will roadblock any and all legal actions and swaying of public opinion with regards to their highly illegal activities. This is about protecting themselves from the public, not protecting the public from illegalities. Outrageous.

The second one on, NLW, nonlethal weapons and human effects. I note that it says that the effects on operators of these weapons is handled elsewhere. We are talking about a wide range of things here. Devices that disrupt machinery, for example, would fall under this category. It isn’t clear to me if they even consider any of the stuff mentioned in the previous post a weapon at all, nonlethal or otherwise, under their definition. I’m assuming they are. (Of course I’m also considering them lethal given that people have died as a result of their use).

Most glaring thing, permanent injury is defined as “physical damage to a person that permanently impairs physiological function and restricts the employment or other activities of that person for the rest of his or her life.” Emphasis McCoyote.

So a weapon the permanently drives someone insane (or, like mefloquine and similar drugs, for untold years after dosage), would not be considered permanent injury and, therefore, might be defined as a nonlethal weapon even though it would clearly prevent employment and the incapacitation is so long as to be considered permanent since such a condition is bound to shorten a lifespan without some sort of legal recourse. A person so disturbed that they cannot work will starve, especially given the policies of cutting back on mental health care and food support. (And, of course, in the case of Gitmo prisoners, they have no recourse but to remain in custody anyway). The free sanitarium is pretty much a thing of the past in the US (and if they crop up again, until proven otherwise, I will assume they are run by the CIA).

Then there are cancer risks. Does getting brain cancer ten years down the road make it lethal? Does dying as a result of the use of these things in general quality as “permanent injury” if death is not immediate?

Attention toward the issues and assigning responsibilities are good things as are attempting to sort out the relative lethality of devices in testing and being used. You can’t throw it all out.

But gearing up for a battle to prevent fallout from what never should have happened in the first place is not. Without serious effects, the cause will always be free to repeat itself. Someone is in need of a serious ass-kicking in order to restore the rule of law and democracy against the internal threats to both.

(And one last note about assigning responsibilities in general. General Karpinski was assigned responsibility over Abu Ghraib but not given authority to visit the entire place nor informed of what was going on. It can be a scapegoat tactic. Additionally, sometimes the IG’s don’t find what they are looking for. Buyer beware).



  1. […] articles from other sources, as well as the additional information from elsewhere, that the recent instructions I talked about here are indeed because DoD expects these issues to become public. The civil rights memo, again, is to […]

  2. […] […]

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s