Taguba Report Release Questions

The White House just announced it's going to release various documents relating to the interrogation of prisoners at Gitmo and in Iraq. Among them will be the list of interrogation techniques that SecDef Rumsfeld approved. My guess—and I mean guess—is that the docs will just reiterate what we already knew about (fear of dogs, sleep deprivation, perhaps water-boarding). At the same time the NYT is reporting that government lawyers in the Abu Ghraib abuses cases have "agreed to declassify all parts ” of the Army's Taguba report. The story doesn't have any details yet, and I can't find any references to it elsewhere. But this could be big (bigger than the other releases).

So far, the public has only seen the summary section of the Taguba report. But there have been a few stories hinting about things in the 6,000-page annex. It's ugly stuff, including apparent rapes and electrocution.

Despite the Times' unequivocal phrasing, I wonder whether the Army will really release the whole report and or what sections will be redacted . Following standard classification procedures, paragraphs in the Taguba are given little marks, namely (S), meaning secret, or (U), meaning unclassified. The idea is that once a whole document is marked for release, soldiers can look at the little marking and redact the graphs marked (S), since those are still secret. It's seems like a reasonable policy--and called "portion marking" if you care. The key though is that the (S) be used legitly.

And that's the problem. The rules say something can only be kept secret if it's a question of national security and explicitly not as part of an effort to conceal crimes. But as the Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood has noted, the leaked bits of the Taguba report have are scads of (S)s in that don't seem to qualify. Straight from the report:

(S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

(S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked
detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a
picture;

(S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles)
to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least
one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

As I mentioned, the still-unseen portions of the report apparently have far worse. Are those going to make it out?

Comments

[Nell Lancaster]

Thanks for staying on this. I was led to your blog via the FAS site, where I'd landed in googling for info on "classified info nondisclosure agreements." An MP at Camp Cropper would only speak to a Post reporter about it anonymously, citing the NDA. I wondered how routine these were, and marveled at how easily they could be used to keep unflattering or illegal doings secret. Then I found the speech by the head of the classification system that specifically cited classification of the Taguba report as a bad example for just that reason.

On the subject of the Taguba report, did the Senate Armed Services Committee ever get the complete copy from the DoD? There were hundreds of pages missing when the staff first got a good look at it, and I've never seen a follow-up. Guess I could call Warner's office to find out, but thought you might be more in the loop.

[Kathleen Craig]

I'm glad you brought up the declassification of the Taguba report -- actually, I've been wondering when this would get jumped on by the media or bloggosphere.

Two days ago, in numerous reports, it was stated that the Judge in the hearings against the 'bad apples' had ordered the entire Taguba report declassified.

"However, the judge granted a request by Bergrin to declassify all parts of an Army investigation report conducted by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. "

That's buried in a story at MSNBC titled "Military judge declares Abu Grahib crime scene" credited to the Associated Press, updated 7:02 am June 21.

No idea if that's what prompted this new report of possible release, by the government, but the stories were pretty unequivocal.