Emails between DOD Officials re: Detainee Parole Concept

Emails discuss a parole program for Iraqi detainees in order to deal with the problem of lengthy detentions. LTC [Redacted] states in the email, "[w]e hold detainees so long that there is no hope of getting actionable intelligence."

Thursday, April 22, 2004
Tuesday, December 20, 2005

From: 111111111111,T6 (MNB-N) SJA OIC Sent: Thursda , April 22, 2004 7:27 PM To: LTC 3/2 Infantry Brigade XO; OL (MNB -N)
MAJ 3/2 Infant Provost
Cc: rovost Marshal; LTC MNB-N) SJA 01C; TC MNB-N) C2 OIC; MAJ 3/2 Infantry riga•e CW3 209MI LTC 3/2 Infantry Brigade XO; M • 2 Infantry Brigade S2;
(M B-N) SJA; CPT 3/2 Infantry Brigade CPT 3/2 SBC SJA
Subject: RE: Detainee Parole Concept To All: I don't see any legal impediments to a local parole/guarantor program. We'll look into some options in case that's the way we decide to go. SJA
Ori incl Message
From: TC 3/2 Infantry Brigade XO
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 4:29 PM

OL (MNB -N) DEP CDR;araniffair MA] 3/2 Infantry
Cc: TC (MNB-N) Provost Marshal; TC (MNB-N) SJA OK;

Al 3/2 Infantry Brigade S3;
W3 209MI; LTC 3/2 Infantry Brigade X0; 111.11111111111111, MAJ 3/2 Infantry Brigade S2 Subject: RE: Detainee Parole Concept
I guess we will need some kind of guidance on what it will take to solve the problem.
There are three potential problem statements:

We hold detainees so long that there is no hope of getting actionable intelligence.
Possible solutions: increase interrogator manning; make conditions less hospitable so
lengthy stays are a deterrent

Local government perceives that we are holding detainees too long. Possible
solutions: IO directed at local government, explaining who we hold and why; release
detainees automatically at a certain time

We hold detainees longer than our higher headquarters permits. Possible solutions:

release detainees automatically at a certain time; take fewer detainees in; increase
interrogator manning

The only standard I am aware of is to hold detainees for no longer than 14 days. OK ­but it often takes longer than that to conduct exploitation of the site they were detained
at; it takes longer than that for an effective interrogation series; it takes longer than that to
collate and pit detainees against each other. This is all true, especially given that the
conditions we put these guys in is in compliance with Western norms. The risk we run, in
reacting to the expressed concerns of the local government by changing the way we do
business, rather than changing their perceptions, is we will be less effective in exploiting.
We absolutely comply with humane standards of treatment; we are edging towards
juridicial rules of evidence as opposed to military detention; and now we are on the verge
of changing our operations to mollify the local government, who are possibly responding
to a well-conveived 10 campaign from somewhere else. I think, before we change too

much, that we should define the problem more clearly.

cto (b) ae)
-----Original Messa
Sent: Thu •ay, pril 22, 2004 4:36 PM
To: D. MA) 3/2 Infantry Brigade Provost
Cc: LTC (MNB-N) Provost Marshal; ilimmilLTC (MNB-N) SJA

LTC (MNB-N) C2 OIC; 1/1111.110.110 MA] 3/2 Infantry Brigade 53; gaminipCW3 209MI; "C 3/2 Infantry Brigade XO MA) 3/2 Infantry Brigade 52
Subject: RE: Detainee Parole Concept
Importance: High

A problem (maybe not 'the' problem) is the length of investigation coupled with inevitable release of a large percentage of our detainees because there isn't the evidence to support onward movement. This has a downstream effect of detainees in the EDF for extended periods, which is a HUGE friction point with the local government and populace. This isn't about capacity but about length of detention, diminishing returns of reinterrogation of detainees, and reducing friction within AO-N. The problem of extended stays and increasing irritation (and an exploitable issue) absolutely does exist.
Original Message
From: 1111111¦1111.11..... MA] 3/2 Infantry Brigade Provost Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 4:31 PM To: COL (MNB -N) DEP CDR LTC (MNB-N) Provost
Marshal; STC (MNB-N) SJA OIC; TC (MNB-N) C2 OIC; 4111.1.1111.111.11 MA) 3/2 Infantry BrigadeS CW3 209M1.11111111111.1 LTC 3/2 Infantry Brigade X0=11. MA) 3/2 Infantry Brigade S2
Subject: RE: Detainee Parole Concept
Sir, my question would be "why do we need to reduce the population?" Is there a problem with the number we have? Has guidance been put out as to what the right number is? If so, I believe the parole concept would complicate the process. It would require more manpower to move the detainee back and forth and require manpower to track where they are. Just seems like we are creating more work for a problem that I'm not sure exists. I might just be out of the loop on what the real problem is...
Pfanner, 3/2 Mel

Original Messa


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:17 PM
To: LTC (MNB-N) Provost Marshal• LTC MNB-N)
SJA OIC; C (MNB-N) C2 OIC; MA) 3/2
Infantry Bri MA) 3/2 Infantry Brigade
Provost; CW3 209MI Subject: Detainee Parole Concept Importance: High
ALCON--CG wants us to look at the potential for implementing a policy of offering parole to those detainees who fall between 'definitely send to Abu G.' and 'reinterrogate.... in order to reduce EDF population. He mentioned it to CW3 today and he will look at it as well. Basically if we identify someone who fits this category we would make the offer pending identification of a guarantor, would have the individual sign a statement pledging no anti-coalition activities, and would immediately move that person out of the general prison population. What I need to know is if there is a reason we can't or shouldn't pursue this. Provide feedback NLT 25 Apr; we'll come together to make a recommendation to the CG after that. Objective is to move quick on this. Thanks,
Deputy Cdr, TF Olympia

(WO z