Captured Libyan Documents and a Criminal Investigation

This is slightly belated, but I wanted to note briefly a significant development related to an earlier post regarding a U.K. civil suit based on documents captured in Tripoli that related to British (and U.S.) involvement in the rendition of individuals to Libya.  Earlier this month, a joint statement by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service announced that a criminal investigation had been initiated into the matter, noting that the services had jointly "decided that the allegations raised in the two specific cases concerning the alleged rendition of named individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya are so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now."

The allegations relate to the renditions of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, both of which, as noted in the New York Times, "have cited a cache of secret documents recovered from the Qaddafi government's intelligence files after the fall of Tripoli to rebel forces, which included letters that appeared to implicate British officials in cooperating with Colonel Qaddafi's agents."

For copies of some of the captured Libyan documents see here and here.

Research Analyst Opening at Conflict Records Research Center

There is a new opening for a Research Analyst at the Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC) at the National Defense University.  The vacancy notes that the CRRC "was established to fulfill the Secretary of Defense's intent to enable research into captured records with 'complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and integrity.'"

Duties include providing research support to Director and staff at CRRC, serving as "IT/digital archive expert and local network administrator," producing research finding aids, and working with "various U.S. government agencies and contractors on issues involving the transfer, translation, validation, and provenance of records."

Requirements and full description are here. Application period closes on February 10, 2012.

Iraq Memory Foundation Defense Contracts

I am posting below several defense contracts for the Iraq Memory Foundation (IMF) that cover the period from 2004 to 2008.  These are important because of their possible relevance to the debate over the Ba'ath party records the IMF collected in Baghdad that are now on deposit at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.  As one example of their potential relevance, in addressing allegations - such as in this 2008 open letter  from Iraq National Library and Archives Director Saad Eskander to the Hoover Institution - that the IMF violated Iraqi law by removing Ba'ath party records from Iraq, Bruce P. Montgomery's recent piece argues that the IMF's status as a U.S. defense contractor might have insulated it from liability under Iraqi law.

I had requested copies of the IMF contracts via FOIA in 2010 to see whether they expressly related to the IMF's collection and removal of the Ba'ath party documents.  Do they?

The first contract - W74V8H-04-P-0393 for $2.1 million for one year - was signed on June 18, 2004, so less than two weeks before legal sovereignty was transferred to the new Iraqi government. The meat of the contract begins at page 7.  The subject matter appears to be primarily the creation of video documentaries, including "victim/witness testimonies" about the Ba'ath regime that would be "broadcast to the people of Iraq" and, with U.S. government assistance, "to other global audiences to counter pro-Sadaam [sic], pro- Ba'thist propaganda."

An early provision, however, also notes that the "operational intent is to be apolitical; recording accounts of witnesses, collecting documents and relics" (emphasis mine). In addition, the stated "Scope" of the contract (provision 4.0) is also quite broad and provides the following (emphasis mine):

The government requires the contractor to collect documentary evidence of atrocities and crimes committed by the former Ba'athist regime of Iraq. The [sic] requires research involving first-hand testimonials, creation of video archives, editing of video footage for documentaries and collecting other documentary evidence of atrocities and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq against the people of Iraq.

Also note provision 6.0 which states:

The contractor will assume sole legal and contractual responsibility for acquisition of "other documentary evidence of atrocities and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq against the people of Iraq" as part of the contract, with the stipulation that it will only be required to purchase documentary evidence from legitimate copyright holders.

The other contracts consist of a one-year contract from 2005-2006 - W74V8H-05-P-0684 (for $1.1 million) - and two additional one year extensions of the contract from 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (each of which adds approximately $1 million).  The primary contract here is expressly called "Iraq Oral History" and, again, it seems primarily focused on creating video testimonials, but it also includes a broad "Scope" stating "The government requires the contractor to collect documentary evidence of atrocities and crimes committed by the former Ba'athist regime of Iraq."

In the end, while all of the contracts seem primarily focused on video testimony and none expressly discuss the Ba'ath party documents collected by the Iraq Memory Foundation (that were transferred to the U.S. and, perhaps, copied by the U.S. government), one could fairly argue that those documents could fit within the scope of the contract.  But you can decide for yourself.

Still Secret U.K. Archives of the Malayan Emergency

The Guardian yesterday had an article called "Batang Kali relatives edge closer to the truth about 'Britain's My Lai massacre'" describing still secret archives relevant to the "Malayan Emergency."  The article notes:

Lawyers representing relatives of 24 unarmed victims who died at Batang Kali, Malaysia, in December 1948 have finally been provided with key Foreign Office correspondence about past investigations and Cabinet Office guidance on when inquiries should be held.

*   *   *   *

The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have always insisted the villagers were shot while trying to escape detention. The incident has been described by some as the "British My Lai massacre", after the US troop killings in Vietnam

*   *   *   *

The Foreign Office has refused, so far, to release any additional documents from its still unreleased colonial-era archive. The depository at Hanslope Park, near Milton Keynes, contains thousands of files not yet handed over to the National Archives.

*   *   *   *

On the question of making public the relevant files at the Hanslope Park archives, it said: "The Foreign Office . . . holds 8,800 files from 37 former British administrations, including Malaya. The government plans to make as much of this material as possible available to the wider public, and has confirmed that the files will be reviewed. This review process may take some time."

For more on other colonial records found at Hanslope Park, see this earlier op-ed.

DOMEX: Joint Intelligence Support to Military Operations

Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News had a recent post highlighting the new Joint Publication 2-01 "Joint and National Intelligence Support to Military Operations" published on January 5, 2012 (available from the Federation of American Scientists here and also on DTIC here).

The document was "prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" and "provides doctrine for joint and national intelligence products, services, and support  to joint military operations."

Document and Media Exploitation is mentioned in several places and Appendix C is devoted exclusively to the topic. While portions are annoyingly written in the military's acronym-heavy style ("The JDEC may be under the OPCON of the CCDR or in direct support of the CCDR and under the staff supervision of the CCMD J-2"), it is definitely worth reading. Aftergood notes in particular the introduction of the term BEI for "biometric-enabled intelligence." This also shows up in the appendix on Document and Media Exploitation, which notes:

The forensic and biometric exploitation of captured or acquired documents and media may also result in the development of FEI and/or BEI data and products to support urgent information needs and operational planning. 

To see the forensic exploitation of a captured document take a look at this report from an FBI lab that tests a number of seized documents for fingerprints.

A few other passages from the Joint Publication (all emphasis mine):

As a general rule, captured and acquired documents and media are considered unclassified unless they originated in the US and/or an allied nation and are marked as classified. Capturing units may classify document and media to protect sources and methods or on-going operations, however, such classification should be kept to the lowest level possible and with minimal use of caveats. Documents that bear foreign classification markings are handled according to US classification standards, regardless of their original foreign classification.

*    *    *    *  

Acquiring units need to protect material in its captured form and document and report the capturing unit, date, time, place (preferably grid coordinates), and circumstances of capture. 

*    *    *    *  

Original documents should never be altered, marked upon, or separated from the batch to which they belong. . . . When at all possible, DOMEX facilities should be fire-protected, have humidity and temperature control systems . . . . Once exploitation is complete, documents should be moved to a storage facility for long-term storage, returned to the capturing unite, or disposed of as directed by the supported command. Documents designated for destruction should be handled in the same manner prescribed for US classified documents to preclude compromise of US and multinational interests.