Talk:66th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States)

Military history: Intelligence / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Alleged misconduct

On checking source 8 for the second item of misconduct alleged to have been carried out by members of the Brigade, I found that the source attributed the misconduct to a member of the 66th Military Intelligence Company. The 66th MI Brigade was an Echelon Above Corps intelligence organization subordinate to the Intelligence and Security Command and supporting USAREUR; the 66th MI Company was a small tactical intelligence company organic to the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. The two are not related in any way.

From the source: "An interrogator with the 66th Military Intelligence Company, who was assigned to work on Mowhoush, wrote back with suggestions in August, including the use of "close confinement quarters," sleep deprivation and using the fear of dogs, adding: "I firmly agree that the gloves need to come off.""

This is an article about the 66th MI Bde; if someone wants to add this snippet to an article about the 66th MI Co, feel free. Since the source doesn't support the comment, I'm removing it. Hiernonymous (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the remaining allegation: Source describes two individuals from the 66th MI Group assigned to the JIDC failing to report detainee abuse they witnessed, and recommending that this be passed to their chains of command for action. As described in the source, it was the 205th MI Bde that was responsible for running the JIDC, and the two soldiers in question were among soldiers provided from at least six units on different continents to bring the JIDC up to the necessary strength.

As these articles are about the organizations, it's not clear why allegations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has been placed on the page for the 66th MI Brigade and not the 205th MI Bde, which actually ran the organization and facilities in question. 66th MI Bde would have had no operational control over any subordinate soldiers or units that were attached to the 205th.

I am not going to delete immediately, but offer this comment as an opportunity to make a case for why a reference to Abu Ghraib belongs on this page. Hiernonymous (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]