Email from DOD to DOD re: Treatment of detainees, enemy prisoners of war and illegal combatants

The general scope of the email is the treatment of detainees, enemy prisoners of war (EPWs) and 'illegal combatants.' The author mentioned that he/she did not believe a particular team was following the rules outlined in Army Regulation 190-8. The author also noted that EPWs in Baghdad were treated differently than 'illegal combatants in GTMO.

Monday, June 30, 2003
Thursday, January 4, 2007

(b)( 3 ) 1 ° From: USC 424
Sent: Monda

. (b)(3).10 USC 424
Subject: EPW's
(b)(3) 10
I sent the note below in response to. note to.Don't know if
USC 424
you were on info. We clearly need GC here and I u.iiiitand someone is on the way.
In the meantime, please share the note below with .ancallif they don't receive
my email. PS, we can't get access to DIAM 58=11 or 58-1n you help us? - I really
need the OVOP and FINPLAN guidance in 58-11. Thanks,11.1 PS: If I'm wrong on any
of the info below, please have GC give me the correct information.
1. As I have explained to ALCON, the treatment of prisoners and their "status" is outlined in AR 190-8. There are no special rules for the EPW's here outside the Geneva Convention and the AR that I am aware. Also, the FM on Interrogation spells out treatment during interrogation by interrogators. It's a matter of reading both documents to learn the do's and don'ts of treatment of EPW's or civilian detainees during war, and reading DIAM 58-12 and 58-11 to learn about HUMINT o erations HUMINT requirements and HUMINT reporting; there are no short cuts an.can write papers on interrogation and collection management respectively and that will provide a good outline; however, it will be difficult for someone new to the game to be able to put it all together without reading the references. Also, keep in mind the rules DHS is following for interrogation and treatment of "illegal combatants" in GTMO is different than those for the treatment of EPW's in Baghdad.
:b)(1),(b)(3) 2. 10 USC 42
he regulations in AR 190-8 are not ing followed and there is good reason to believe that the
procedures in the FM and Geneva Convention for treatment of EPW's are also being violated_
(b)(1) 3; I am comfortable tha the •eo•le are s ' 'n to the rules. sa. that hay the EPW'
Procedures for the removal of prisoners .e detention facility falls under AR 190-8 and is the res onsibilit of the Milita • Police Battalion, not ISG. and certainly no is allowing prisoners to be released out t e prisoner •eing-accompanied and guarded b