Memo discusses interviews conducted by MG Fay regarding unauthorized photographs.
States that a thumb drive was found in the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) with disturbing images on it.
The interviewee reported he/she advised their colleague who found a thumb drive containing photos of dead anti coalition forces that the photos were not unlawful and it was proper to return them to their owner.
Memo states:
1- The photos were not taken at Abu Ghraib but immediately after an engagement by
coalition forces here in Iraq.
2- The photos depicted dead anti - coalition personnel and anti-coalition personnel
detained on the battlefield and masked with empty sandbags.
3- The photos did not indicate that the bodies or the captured personnel were being
abused or treated improperly, merely that their images were recorded by digital photograph.
4- That the identity of the person who owned the memory stick was, at the time, unknown
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, TASK FORCE READY and FOR ADU OMAR
APO AE 011342
REPLY TO
ATIENIION OF
27 April 2004 AFVQ-JA
MEMORANDUM FOR Record
SUBJECT: Procedure 15 Investigation Questions on Photos of Iraqis on the Battlefield
1. Or 27 April 2004 MG Fay interviewed me in conjunction with the Procedure 15 investigation he is conducting on intelligence involvement with civilian internee abuse at FOB Abu Ghraib during October and November 2003. During the course of his investigation interviewees related that they had heard of photos being discovered in the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center
(JIDC) with 'disturbing" images on it.
the deputy director of the JIDC, and learned that
2. MG Fay questioned.when the photographs kept on a "memory stick' were discoveredLTC Foust had consulte me the memory stick to the soldier who owned it.
in the JIDC and that igaMillibretumed
3. I informed MG Fay that I did recall the event and my conversations with .The
event occurred in either late February or early March 2004. To the best of my recollection the
facts I was presented at the time were:
The photos were not taken at Abu Ghraib but immediately after an engagement by
a.
coalition forces here in Iraq.
coalition personnel and anti-coalition personnel
-
b. The photos depicted dead anti
detained on the battlefield and masked with empty sandbags.
The photos did not indicate that the bodies or the captured personnel were being
c.
abused or treated improperly, merely that their images were recorded by digital photograph.
d. That the identity of the person who owned the memory stick was, at the time,
unknown.
4. 011811.sought my advice on whether an offense under the UCMJ, a violation of
international law, or a violation of Army Regulations occurred by the taking of these
Based on the facts presented to me, it was and is my opinion that no conduct
photographs
occurred in violation of law or regulation Army Regulation 190-8, paragraph 1-5(d) prohibits
non-official photography of persons in custody at. US military facilities. Additionally, the third
and fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit making EPWs and Cls the subject of public . cunosity or ridicule. The photographed personnel were not in custody at Abu Ghraib or at
8 was not violated. Additionally, no information
-
another US Military detention facility. so AR 190
was presented to me indicating that the persons photographed were made the subject of
• ridicule or public curiosity.
5. As to the question about whether the photos or memory stick should have been returned to
a
the person who owned it, I can think of no legal grounds to seize the item. In my opinion,
violation of law or military regulations had not occurred. The threshold question for a
AGO 0 0 0 3 9 6
DOD 000484
AFVQ-JA
SUBJECT: Procedure 15 Investigation Questions on Photos of Iraqis on the Battlefield
commander or a military magistrate prior to directing the seizure of the personal property of
someone subject to the UCMJ is that there is probable cause to believe a crime had been
eUnited States
See Military Rule of Evidence 316, Manual for Courts-Martial of the U
committed.
2002. The government has no right to seize private property without due procss of law. Even
a seizure of personal property absent some
erasing the digital photos in issue would amount to
authority to do so under law or military regulations (like the authority we have to seize See CENTCOM General Order number 1a and
contraband items like alcohol and illegal drugs_
CJTF-7 General Order number 1).
As to the question of whether the soldiers chain of command should have been notified_of
6.
as presented, I agree. At the time. I understood that the identity of
the facts and circumstances
the soldier who owned the photos and, presumably, took the photos, was unknown. Afterl or one of his subordinate leaders determined ownership, the chain of command should eaPbeen notified. I did not advise him to do so at the time believing that any soldier working
fviil
in the JIDC was subject to the authority of the JIDC.
Additionally, during my conversation with MG Fay, he agreed that given the facts presented,
7.
he also could not think of a violation of the UCMJ, Army Regulations, or international law
resulting from the photographs in question under the circumstances as we understand them
today.
B. I have sent a request toall.1111111116. chief of operational and international law at
OSJA, CJTF-7 to have a consideration given to a FRAGO prohibiting personal photography of anti-coalition personnel under all circumstances.
9. Point of contact is the undersigned a
Command Judge Advocate
AG0000397
DOD 000485