Theresa Cameranesi, et al v. DOD, et al
FILED OPINION (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, SANDRA S. IKUTA and PAUL J. WATFORD) REVERSED. Judge: SSI Authoring, Judge: PJW Dissenting. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. 
FACA Database: DOD - 12170 - Board of Visitors for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation - Statutory (Congress Created) - ( Verify/Review By: ...
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 1 of 20
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Access: Public Access
DOD - 12170 - Board of Visitors for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation - Statutory (Congress Created) - (
Verify/Review By: CMO GFO DFO ) - Histories
Back to: Committee
. of D
GSA and DataCall Systems
Security and Privacy Notice
https://database.faca.gov/committee/histories.aspx?cid=1860&fy=2002[9/26/2016 2:43:39 PM]
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 2 of 20
Board of Visitors
Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation
MEMORANDUM THRU SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SUBJECT: Minutes of Session, 3-4 June 2002 of the Board of Visitors for the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
1. General. The Board of Visitors (BoV) for the Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), a federal advisory committee established under
Public Law 106-398 (The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2001)
and Public Law 92-462 (The Federal Advisory Committee Act) and chartered on
1 February 2002, convened in Room 219, Building 35 (Ridgeway Hall), WHINSEC, Fort
Benning, Georgia at 0905 hours on 3 June 2002 andaconcluded session at 1230 hours
on 4 June 2002. All sessions were open to o. 14-public. At Enclosure 1 is a listing of
Board members, representatives, of Defen
consultants and other attendees and briefing
personnel. At Enclosuren2siis. a copy of the BoV’s itinerary (agenda). At Enclosure 3 is a
Cpresentations made to the BoV. At Enclosure 4 is a copy of the BoV
copy of each ofed in
3. Purpose. This was the inaugural session for this advisory committee in compliance
with PL 106-398 (Title 10 United States Code 2166). The WHINSEC BoV met to
organize itself and to gather information on the Institute’s organization, curriculum,
operations, resources and activities since its activation on January 17, 2001.
4. Summary. This was the BoV’s first session after the filing of its charter on
1 February 2002 and therefore the members focused on gathering information on
WHINSEC and organizing themselves. While their collective initial observation is that
this institute has an important role and appears to be meeting the requirements of the
authorizing legislation, the members decided to schedule their annual meeting for
December 12-13, 2002 and to continue their review of WHINSEC in the interim before
reporting their final observations and making any recommendations to the Secretary of
the Army, the executive agent, and the Secretary of Defense.
5. Details of Session.
a. The session permitted the BoV members, advisors, the executive secretariat
and WHINSEC faculty and staff to get to know one another and enabled the BoV to
learn about WHINSEC and its operations. The BoV received detailed briefings on the
Institute’s activities since its activation on 17 January 2001; met with WHINSEC faculty,
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 3 of 20
SUBJECT: Report of Session, 3-4 June 2002 of the Board of Visitors for the
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
staff and students in discussions covering a myriad of topics; met with local post and
civilian governmental officials and toured the Institute’s facilities. Members of the BoV
had a very positive initial impression of the Institute.
b. Ten members of the U.S. general public (including four journalists) attended
various portions of this meeting. One member addressed the BoV noting his opposition
to the institute and U.S foreign policy in the Hemisphere but stating that the BoV
appeared focused on providing independent oversight as called for by the law.
6. Results of Session.
a. The BoV decided that this session would be of organization and information
gathering. It will convene for its annual meeting on December 12-13, 2002. While the
BoV members observed that the Institute was meeting the requirements of the
legislation, they wanted to look more deeply and broadly into the Institute’s activities
before providing their formal observations and recommendations to the Secretary of
b. The members elected as Chairman, Ambassador (ret) Dennis Jett and as
Vice Chairman, Mr. Steven Schneebaum and approved a curriculum sub-committee with
Dr. Lincoln and Dr Avant as co-chair and Ambassador Sorzano volunteering to serve
and MG Speer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Fisk stating that they rwould6send
temb meet and report its
representation for their respective agencies. This sub-committee will
observations and recommendations to the other boardchive
ar members prior to the annual
session. The Board also approved a liaisono.with6the WHINSEC Human Rights
Committee. Vice Chairman Schneebaum will serve as the HR Liaison and attend
Human Rights committeeesessions and report his observations to the BoV members.
d. The Board decided to:
(1) modify its draft By-Laws and vote them final at the annual session.
The Board’s executive secretariat will assist the Board.
(2) look into legislative wording to assist the Institute with its guest
(3) conduct an interim visit by the BoV Curriculum Sub-committee before
the annual session.
e. The DFO will file all information with the appropriate agencies and make the
information available to the public as required by Army and DOD policy
John C. Speedy, III
DAMO-SS, Army G3
Designated Federal Official and Executive
Secretary to the BoV WHINSEC
Chairman, BoV WHINSEC
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 4 of 20
Board of Visitors
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Annual Report and Recommendations
1-2 December 2004
1. The Board of Visitors (BoV) of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC) convened for its annual meeting at 0900 on 1 December 2004,
at WHINSEC, Building 35, Fort Benning, Georgia. In the absence of BG Kevin Ryan,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and Executive Secretary to the Board, the meeting was
called to order by the Acting DFO LTC (P) Linda Gould.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory
Committees Act, the meeting was open to the public. Sessions were held on Wednesday
1 December 2004 from 0900 to approximately 1615, and on Thursday 2 December 2004
from 0900 to 1130. The agenda of the meeting is set out at Annex A.
3. The Members of the Board and their Advisors are listed in Annex B. The following
Members and Advisors were present:
Steven M. Schneebaum, Esq., Chair
Charles A. Risher, Ph.D., Vice-Chair
Mr. Clyde Taylor, representing Sen. o. 14- Chambliss
, N Saxby
Evelyn Farkas, Ph.D., Dept. of Def
representing Sen. Carl Levin
Mr. Jim Irwin, eranesi v
representing Rep. Phil Gingrey
Ms. AnndNorris, representing Rep. Loretta Sanchez
Mr. Daniel W. Fisk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
LTG Anthony Jones, representing GEN Kevin Byrnes
BG Benjamin Aponte, representing GEN Bantz Craddock
Jennie Lincoln, Ph.D. (Thursday only)
Ambassador (Ret.) Jose Sorzano
Louis Gatto, Ph.D.
Mr. Eugene Shaw
LTG (Ret.) Gordon Sumner
Member Deborah Avant, Ph.D., and Advisors MAJ Kent Svendsen and Virginia Haufler,
Ph.D. were unavoidably absent and sent regrets. There is one vacancy on the Board.
Acting as Executive Secretariat to the Board, were COL Charles Hooper, LTC (P) Linda
Gould, and Ms. Shannon Russ.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 5 of 20
The following specially invited guests attended: Mr. Roger Pardo-Maurer, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary
The following senior staff and faculty of WHINSEC attended the meeting: COL Gilberto
Pérez, Commandant; LTC Jose Pizarro, Chief of Staff; Donald Harrington, Ph.D.,
Academic Dean and Contractor/Advisor to the Institute.
3. LTC (P) Gould officially convened the session, noting that this was the annual
meeting of the Board described in 10 U.S.C. § 2166(e)(3), a public meeting under the
Federal Advisory Committees Act. (A copy of the Federal Register announcement of the
meeting is attached as Annex C.) By statute, the BoV is tasked with preparing and
presenting to the Secretary of Defense, within 60 days of the annual meeting, “a written
report of its activities and of its views and recommendations pertaining to the Institute.”
See 10 U.S.C. § 2166(e)(5).
4. LTC (P) Gould then handed over presiding authority to the Board Chairman, Mr.
Schneebaum, who asked all Members, Advisors, special guests, and others to introduce
themselves. Mr. Schneebaum welcomed everyone present, especially those Members
and Advisors attending their first meeting of the Board, BG Aponte and Dr. Gatto. He
also thanked and commended the WHINSEC staff for its skill in organizing 6
transportation and accommodation for the Board.
(P) Gould’s reminder regarding
5. Mr. Schneebaum reiterated LTC
the need to prepare a
report at the end of the meeting. ptHe read the relevant statutory language to the Board.
He also made a numberranesi v
me of housekeeping announcements.
6. Mr. Schneebaum reported that he had attended the ceremony in honor of the BoV’s
long-serving DFO, Dr. Jack Speedy, at the Pentagon on September 10, 2004, and
conveyed to Dr. Speedy on behalf of the entire Board warmest congratulations and best
wishes for his retirement. The Chairman also noted that the former WHINSEC Liaison
Officer (LNO), Mr. Ken LaPlante, had departed to assume a position at the Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies. He commended LTC (P) Gould and her staff for taking on
the added responsibilities of having to replace two such valued and knowledgeable
7. a. The first order of business was a discussion of the venue for the spring meeting of
the Board. The Chairman noted that the annual (i.e., the fall/winter) meeting of the
Board will be at WHINSEC, and proposed that the spring (organizational) meeting,
which will be the next meeting of the BoV, possibly in May 2005, be in Washington,
D.C. Specifically, he recommended that the meeting itself be held in a committee room
of one of the Houses of Congress, hosted by the relevant Board Members, and that the
Members from the other House host a social event, or a dinner.
b. While there was general and even enthusiastic agreement about having the spring
meeting in Washington, a number of Board Members, as well as the Commandant, made
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 6 of 20
the point that this change should not deter Members from making their own visits to Fort
Benning during the year. The statute permits, and COL Pérez encourages, Members to
visit the Institute to meet students and faculty, to attend classes and programs, and to do
whatever fact-finding they wish to undertake. Only if Members actually spend time at
Fort Benning, it was generally agreed, will they be in a position to give the Secretary of
Defense the quality of advice and counsel that the statute requires of the Board.
c. One Member of the Board proposed that selected students from the Institute attend
the spring meeting, and the Commandant suggested that he would look into whether
funding was available for that purpose, and whether such a trip could be accommodated
into students’ schedules. There was discussion of whether a Washington meeting might
provide a broader opportunity for the American public – including opponents of the
Institute – to observe the BoV, and through it to learn about WHINSEC. This was
generally thought to be a good thing, although one of the Board’s Advisors expressed
concern that the meeting not be turned into a propaganda event. It was specifically noted
that Congressional opponents might wish to attend the meeting, and there was no reason
to discourage this so long as the Board’s agenda can be accomplished.
d. The Commandant observed that not having to carry the logistical burden of
organizing the spring meeting would be a great benefit to his staff. At the end of the
discussion, LTC (P) Gould stated her conviction that it would be possible2016arrange the
spring meeting in Washington, with the help of, among others,Sep Congressional
Members of the Board, and that it would present public hrelations opportunities that
should not be missed. It will be a challenge o. 14- something like this, but the rewards
, N to do
will be great. HQDA G-35-R Dept. of Def to work with concerned parties to select a
suitable date, which ameranesi communicated to Members later.
will be v
8. The Chairman then called upon the Commandant to present his briefing, assisted by
staff as appropriate. Before doing so, he reminded the Board that it should pay attention
in particular to progress on the recommendations made at the last BoV meeting, held on
15-16 July 2004. There were four ongoing issues of significant concern: developing
mechanisms for tracking the success of the Institute and the careers of its former students
(“metrics”); the impact of the American Servicemember Protection Act (ASPA), in
particular with respect to Article 98 agreements, on operations at the Institute; the
progress of transition from the Command and General Staff Course (CGSC) curriculum
to Intermediate Level Education (ILE); and the perennial question of translation of lesson
plans into English. Members were encouraged to raise any questions on those subjects or
any others during the briefing.
9. The Commandant of WHINSEC, COL Gilberto Pérez, then briefed the Board on
developments at the Institute. A copy of his prepared outline is attached at Annex D.
The highlights were the following:
a. COL Pérez began with a short summary of the mission of WHINSEC and of his
goals as its leader. He stressed the obligation to provide quality education in professional
military and related areas, in a manner consistent with Department of Defense and U.S.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 7 of 20
Army policy, in support of the Combatant Commands for the Western Hemisphere, U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
WHINSEC seeks to place the right student in the right course, and to teach them the right
skills and values.
b. Determining whether WHINSEC, or for that matter any educational institution, is
succeeding is a complicated matter. Inherent problems in such an exercise are
exacerbated here, since there are no funds, nor is there legal authority, to follow the
subsequent military careers of former students on an organized basis. Nonetheless,
WHINSEC has undertaken a process of Level III (external) evaluation, with one analyst
already in place and another to be deployed. SOUTHCOM has a survey tool that
WHINSEC is using, and there are many informal, albeit reliable, contacts through U.S.
Military Group (MILGROUP) commanders and their in-country counterparts. The
Commandant himself reported that he has used his own trips to Latin America as
opportunities to inquire about the success and impact of former WHINSEC students.
c. WHINSEC students themselves are extensively surveyed while they are on-site,
and many former students have voluntarily kept in touch to provide feedback. There is,
therefore, substantive information regarding how students perceive the success or failure
of the course offerings. But an institutionalized, scientific, long-term “metric” is likely to
be elusive, for reasons both practical and legal.
d. The Commandant reported one incident of particular pride. Three of the four
Paraguayan students who attended the counter-narcotics course in August 2004 were
involved, just three months afterptreturning to Paraguay, in the largest drug raid in the
history of their country.ranesi v raid was conducted in full compliance with international
standards, anditbyin accounts the three WHINSEC alumni (all on the Commandant’s List
c ed all
at the Institute) comported themselves with professionalism and honor. Board Members
noted that “success stories” like this are rarely covered in the media in the United States,
and repeated their often-expressed wish that there were a way of informing the public
about the good works individual WHINSEC graduates were doing after returning to their
e. With respect to the ILE transition, COL Pérez (assisted by LTC Ress Wilson)
provided a time-line showing tasks completed and those pending. The project remains an
enormously ambitious one for the entire Army, and is made even more daunting and
more costly at WHINSEC, because of the need to translate teaching materials into
Spanish. The Commandant reviewed the costs involved through FY 08, and the plans to
have a pilot ILE syllabus in place for the academic year June 06 – June 07.
f. The Commandant (and Dean Harrington) reported continuing efforts to engage the
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) community with WHINSEC. Through contacts
made with the Carr Center at Harvard by Dr. Avant, invitations were extended to NGOs
to visit the Institute in September and October 2004. Neither was accepted. Another
effort will be made in January. In addition, NGOs have been invited to nominate
candidates for the Bolivar Award, and a few of these have resulted in the submission of
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 8 of 20
names. Fourteen total nominations were provided, with responses from three U.S.
Embassies, and three NGOs. An NGO media conference is scheduled for 10 March
g. With respect to ASPA, the Commandant reported a loss of 99 students in FY 04,
from seven Latin American countries (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru,
Uruguay, and Venezuela). More than these number of spots, however, have been
reprogrammed to accommodate cadets from Honduras and El Salvador. As a result, the
total number of students scheduled to take courses at WHINSEC in the coming year will
be greater than had been projected, with a 10% increase over the prior year (charts
provided by Eric Falls, Department of State, list student body composition by rank for
2003 and 2004: see Appendix E). The assignment of cadets from Central America
represents a commitment by the Department of Defense to use International Military
Education and Training (IMET) funds within the Latin American theater, as the Board
had recommended in July, rather than give up funds to other regions. The negative
impact, while not reflected in gross student numbers, is the loss of representatives from
all the nations of the region as well as a focus on cadet-level engagement versus midlevel officers.
h. On the subject of the translation of lesson plans, the Commandant was able to
inform the Board that 97.5% of the pages requiring translation have now, 2016 translated.
This total excludes those that will become obsolete with the oILEptransition, which the
Board had urged in July need not be translated since2they e
arch will very soon no longer be
i v. D
i. With respect to meranes
curriculum and academic developments, COL Pérez described for
the Board thecefforts to engage students in learning about the U.S. electoral process in
November, which apparently encountered great success. These included a pre-brief,
observation of polling places, and a follow-up discussion.
j. Dean Harrington presented a report on the American Council on Education (ACE)
evaluation of WHINSEC in October 2004. The result was that the courses were
accredited for 131 credits (an increase from 93): 17 graduate credits for CGSC (0
before), 60 upper division credits (49 before), 33 lower division credits (an increase from
28), and six vocational certificate credits (none before). This result far exceeded
expectations, and is a tribute to the hard work of Dean Harrington and the faculty. The
Board expressed its sincere congratulations for this outcome.
k. The Commandant (with Assistant Dean Joe Leuer) reported on the Open House
hosted by the Institute during the weekend of protests at Fort Benning in November.
Three groups – 25 organizations, mostly composed of students and clergy, a total of 432
people – were welcomed to WHINSEC’s Pratt Hall for a presentation by a panel
including a representative of the Department of State, as well as WHINSEC faculty and
administration. The Commandant, the Dean, LTC (P) Gould, and Mr. Schneebaum also
attended the Open House and participated in the panel. COL Pérez reported that there
was a frank exchange of views, and that nothing untoward happened during the sessions.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 9 of 20
An enormous effort was invested by WHINSEC staff to transport protesters to the
Institute, to monitor their presence, and to ensure generally that their experience was
constructive. It was reported that there were a few unfortunate incidents in which
protesters were subject to excessive scrutiny, including searches of personal belongings
and questioning by officials that were perceived as intimidating, or were separated from
their groups for no apparent reason. COL Pérez undertook to investigate those
allegations and to ensure that no such incidents are repeated next year. The Board
expressed its special gratitude to Mr. Fisk for arranging for the attendance of a State
Department colleague, Mr. Paul Trevelli who, by all accounts, was an invaluable
participant, presenting a cogent explanation of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. The
Board’s view was that the Open House was a good idea in principle and a success in
execution, and Members generally agreed with the Commandant’s recommendation that
Congressional Members consider participating next year.
l. COL Pérez also briefed the Board on the increasing engagement of the Institute
with U.S. Army South (USARSO), his visit to Colombia in November 2004, and, assisted
by Mr. David Mize, the Director of Resource Management for WHINSEC, FY 05
finances, which included unfinanced requirements at the level of $4.76 million. Most of
this ($3.9 million) reflects costs connected with the ILE conversion. Several Board
Members and Advisors expressed their approval of the fiscal administration of the
Institute, operating efficiently with a relatively low budget in terms of 26, 2016
tembhis trip to Colombia
expenditure on students. COL Pérez informed the Board thatnduring
he was able to speak with former graduates and their supervisors to gain an appreciation
.1 of the impact of the curriculum and to evaluate4any perceived shortfalls.
i v. D
m. COL Pérez completed his briefing with a charge to the Board to become more
involved in the Institute through recommendations for improvements, and through
providing information to constituencies that often have an inaccurate view of the
institution and its mission.
10. After the Commandant’s briefing, the Board adjourned for lunch, at which Members
and Advisors were seated at tables with WHINSEC students and faculty (with
interpreters as needed), providing an opportunity for informal discussion of the
experiences that Latin American military officers and their families have had during their
assignment to study at WHINSEC.
11. At the opening of the afternoon session, the Chairman asked the representative of the
Commander of SOUTHCOM, BG Aponte, as the major “client” agency of WHINSEC,
whether SOUTHCOM was satisfied with the job the Institute was doing. BG Aponte
delivered a briefing of which the prepared outline is at Annex F. His conclusions were
that WHINSEC is providing valuable support to SOUTHCOM’s mission in the
hemisphere. He discussed SOUTHCOM’s ongoing needs assessment, in which
WHINSEC is an instrumental part. SOUTHCOM continues to seek and to receive
evaluations from the various U.S. MILGROUPs in the region, and to develop
mechanisms for surveying former students as well as their commanding officers.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 10 of 20
12. The Board noted with considerable disappointment that NORTHCOM was unable to
send a representative to the meeting. Although NORTHCOM is not given a
representative on the BoV by statute, the Board has been careful, since the institution of
the new Command, to include NORTHCOM in all of its discussions, and to ensure that
any special needs of NORTHCOM (including language needs) can be accommodated by
the Institute. It is hoped that an officer of suitable rank will be available to attend BoV
discussions in the future.
13. While there was no separate, prepared briefing by LTG Jones on behalf of the U.S.
Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), LTG Jones participated actively in
the discussions of the ILE transformation, describing the overall Army vision of the new
educational syllabus for mid-level officers. He expressed TRADOC’s strong support for
the Institute in general, and in particular for its efficiency in presenting approved training
and doctrine translated into Spanish for Western Hemisphere students, as well as English
materials for students from Caribbean nations.
14. The remainder of the afternoon session was dedicated to an effort to identify and
discuss the issues that would form the recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, in
accordance with the Board’s governing statute. The outcomes of those discussions are
presented below. There was a very short briefing on WHINSEC’s physical plant,
presented by CPT Rivero and CPT Mitschke, mainly to update the Board2on6 barracks
renovation and use of a reinforced tent to house the studentsoduring the construction
period. An in-depth discussion of physical plant issueschive deferred to the spring
meeting. In addition, COL Pérez introducedo.to4the Board the new Department of State
representative to WHINSEC, Mr.. Michael Oreste, who has replaced Mr. Tony Interlandi.
15. As provided in the Federal Register announcement of the meeting, and in conformity
with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, the agenda called for a period of time in
which members of the public were invited to address the Board. No one registered in
advance to make such a presentation. At the appointed time, the Chairman asked whether
there were public participants who wished to speak, and recognized Dr. Tidwell a
physician and resident of Columbus, Georgia. Dr. Tidwell and his wife were two of the
organizers of the God Bless Fort Benning rally, which took place at the same time as the
protests in November. Dr. Tidwell commended the Board and the Institute for their work
in support of a humanitarian and democratic foreign policy in Latin America. The Board
then adjourned for the day.
16. The Chairman called the Board back to order at 0900 on Thursday 2 December. On
behalf of the entire Board, and all friends of the Institute, Mr. Schneebaum congratulated
the Acting DFO, LTC (P) Linda Gould, on her promotion to the rank of Colonel, which
was officially confirmed that morning.
17. The remainder of the session was then dedicated to discussing those issues that
Members felt were contentious, or that they felt should be the subjects of
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. The outcome of those conversations was
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 11 of 20
a. Metrics. It was agreed that it is important for a number of reasons to be able to
measure the Institute’s performance. The Secretary of Defense and the American people,
have a right to know whether the Government’s investment in WHINSEC is being spent
wisely. There was considerable discussion about just what it is that should be measured.
At least four potentially quantifiable matters were listed: (a) the success of the Institute
as an educational institution, i.e., are the courses and instructors effective, and are the
students learning? (b) the extent to which the Institute is serving the objectives of the
United States in the theater, i.e., is the Institute a useful vehicle to reach U.S. foreign
policy objectives? (c) whether students at the Institute go on to have successful careers,
i.e., have they internalized the standards of military professionalism taught at
WHINSEC? and (d) whether former students at WHINSEC have properly learned the
human rights lessons taught to them, i.e., are they involved in violations of human rights
or international humanitarian law?
While surveys and feedback mechanisms can be used before students return home, it
was generally agreed that for a variety of reasons there can never be an efficient, formal
means of monitoring either students’ reactions to their WHINSEC experiences, or the
progress of their subsequent careers. Moreover, there are unique sensitivities connected
with WHINSEC: those who, for whatever reason, mistrust the Institute already would
hardly tolerate efforts to monitor the lives of foreign citizens long after26, 2016received
training at Fort Benning.
Other educational institutions,
Army institutions, have had to deal
with this same problem. LTGDJones described for the Board the methods used at Fort
Leavenworth. He stressed sthat there is a difference between two measurable facts:
whether graduates are implicated in human rights violations, and whether they have
progressed in their professions following their WHINSEC educations. He recommended
utilization of military-to-military tracking to help determine whether training of military
leaders has been successful. He noted that many graduates might progress not only in
their military careers, but also in the civilian leadership of their countries.
b. “Success stories.” Members noted with some frustration that opponents of the
Institute have deftly managed to assign guilt to WHINSEC (or its predecessor, the School
of the Americas) for every human rights violation committed by a person who once
walked through the Institution’s front door, even if it was to study helicopter repair. This
has deflected the focus of the public discussion of the Institute to what Members agreed
was irrelevant. The real issue is whether WHINSEC is carrying out the mission that the
law assigns to it.
Nevertheless, Members discussed at some length whether there was any data base of
“success stories,” to counter to some degree the “rogues gallery” public relations assault
from the Institute’s opponents. An Advisor reminded the Board that it was dangerous to
move in the direction of “taking credit” for graduates’ successes, since that is inconsistent
with insisting on institutional innocence with respect to the failures. It was generally
agreed, however, that it would be useful to have more accurate and more regular
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 12 of 20
reporting, even if only on an anecdotal basis, of the activities of former WHINSEC
c. ILE transition. The consensus of the Board was that the previous day’s session
had exhausted the subject.
d. NGO participation. The Board noted that it has continually revisited the question
of how to interest NGOs in participation with WHINSEC, and virtually all efforts made
by the faculty and administration have failed. A number of Members indicated that they
perceived an irony here: human rights organizations appear unwilling even to visit the
educational institution that they seek to close down so they can see it for themselves,
choosing to rely for their information on sources that have a heavy political agenda.
Other board members believe that the problems WHINSEC has had engaging the human
rights community has more to do with the legacy of the School of the Americas and
cultural differences between the NGO community and the military, and thus was bound
to take time. Nevertheless, and regardless of the reasons for this, it was the consensus of
the Board that the Institute should continue to make whatever efforts it can make to reach
out to the NGO community (productive efforts to engage some NGOs through the Carr
Center at Harvard are now underway), and to solicit NGO participation in Human Rights
and Democracy Week, nominations for the Bolivar Award, and the like, and to take
advantage of contacts and opportunities presented to it, but that it should, 2016 embark on a
major campaign or to spend substantial resources unless current p
e circumstances change.
Board Members acknowledged thatsthey. 14
No themselves might be a useful resource
Defe have personal and professional connections
the Institute in this capacity, since of
i v. D
e. Protests and the Open House. The Board commended the Commandant and his
staff, as well as the outside participants, for their proactive and successful strategy for
responding to the protests in November.
f. ASPA and Article 98 agreements. Board Members recognized quickly that they are
not all in agreement on the advisability of ASPA sanctions; at the same time, they agreed
that the statute is the law, and that everyone must live within it. The fact is that, as the
BoV had recommended, IMET funding for Latin America has remained within the
region. Seven countries that had planned to send students to WHINSEC were unable to
do so. Nevertheless, WHINSEC was able to boost overall attendance, in part through an
increase in attendance of cadets, rather than mid-level or non-commissioned officers,
who have been WHINSEC’s traditional constituency. There was considerable discussion
about the impact of ASPA sanctions on the composition of the student body.
The Commandant reiterated his commitment to have the right student in the right
course. His concern was not whether students were cadets, but rather whether he and his
staff had the maximum flexibility and capacity to educate appropriate students, in light of
the Institute’s human and financial resources.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 13 of 20
g. Translations. As the process of translating lesson plans has now been virtually
completed, there was no further discussion of this issue.
18. Recommendations. After these discussions, the Board of Visitors adopted the
following recommendations, to be transmitted to the Secretary of Defense:
a. Metrics. The Board reluctantly acknowledges that WHINSEC cannot and, in the
current state of affairs, should not attempt to track the careers of individual former
students. It should continue, and indeed it should improve, the mechanisms currently in
place for after-action reports and follow-up from students, using the best available
techniques for gathering class feedback. The Board recommends that thought be given
by the WHINSEC staff to increasing and improving its devices to obtain this kind of
information. Beyond what WHINSEC can do on-site, the Board recommends that the
U.S. MILGROUPs in Latin America be used, at least on an informal basis, to acquire
information about the successes and failures of former WHINSEC students who have
returned to their own countries. There may well be means of collecting reports from
Embassies in the theater.
Before the spring meeting, the BoV recommends that efforts be made by the Department
of Defense to gather whatever recent information is available regarding WHINSEC
graduates, for dissemination to and discussion by the Board. The agenda 2for that meeting
will include development of a more organized and institutionalized means of collecting
that information, and making it available to the public,rcwithout editorial control.
. 14, No
t. of agreed that it is
b. “Success stories.” The
not its institutional role to
disseminate “success meranesi v but rather to provide public oversight and to report
accurate information. That said, it was the Board’s view that a proper and objective set
of “metrics,” as discussed in paragraph (a) above, may obviate the need for a separate
mechanism for disseminating “success stories.”
c. ILE transition. The Board has been pleased to see that WHINSEC is being fully
incorporated into the process of transition from CGSC to ILE. The Commanding General
of TRADOC is to be commended for this support. The BoV recommends that this
integration continue, and specifically urges the Secretary to recall the additional onus on
WHINSEC, beyond the burden all of its sister institutions must bear, because of the need
to translate educational materials into Spanish. If this requires additional funding for
WHINSEC, then that funding should be provided. The objective is not only to retain and
improve a first-class curriculum, including graduate-level professional educational
opportunities for students (as has now been recognized by the American Council on
Education), but to ensure that United States military officers who pursue the ILE program
at WHINSEC are in no way disadvantaged in comparison with their peers who take the
course at Fort Leavenworth or elsewhere.
d. NGO participation. The Board believes that WHINSEC needs to review its means
of reaching out to the NGO community. Years of experience demonstrate that some of
the organizations that it wants to reach have their own reasons for declining any
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 14 of 20
opportunity to visit the Institute, to meet with its faculty or students, or to learn about its
mission. Further efforts to obtain the substantive participation of those groups is
probably not a wise use of federal funding. But other organizations may be more open to
engagement, and care should be taken to follow leads that may build bridges. NGOs
should continue to be included in mass mailings, such as appeals for nominations for the
Bolivar Award. The Institute should continue to invite representatives to participate in
programs, for example in Human Rights and Democracy Week, and to act as a resource
for further development of the human rights curriculum. But other than that, no additional
resources should be invested in efforts to appeal to those NGOs that have made their
position clear by repeated refusal to engage. New NGOs should be pursued within the
discretion of the Commandant and the Dean. However, the educational mission of the
Institute is the most important factor, and, in the opinion of the Board, there is no reason
to go to extraordinary lengths to win support from outside organizations. Individual
members of the Board of Visitors, of course, are free (and indeed are encouraged) to use
their individual connections with NGOs as they see fit, and where possible should at least
facilitate appropriate meetings for NGOs with WHINSEC personnel.
e. Protests and the Open House. It is the sense of the Board of Visitors that
WHINSEC hosted a very successful and well-executed Open House, and the Board
commended the Commandant and his staff for a job well done, especially in encouraging
dialogue with people who may not have had dialogue on their minds when016 came to
, 2 they
Fort Benning. The Board was especially pleased to see that otheeDepartment of State sent
a representative capable of addressing the many questionseabout the role of WHINSEC in
hemispheric policy. The Board recommends .that the Commandant make additional
efforts next year to avoid any appearance of intimidation of protesters, and that all
WHINSEC staff continue etovrespect the right of protesters to peaceful expression of their
views. The Board hopes that at least some of its Congressional Members will find time
to attend the Open House next November.
f. ASPA and Article 98 agreements. The Board noted that it is pleased with the
decision to retain IMET funds in the Hemisphere, as it had previously recommended. It
encourages the continuation of that policy. The Board recommends reassignment of
IMET funds be made as promptly as possible, to permit WHINSEC maximum flexibility
in optimizing its student load. The Board hopes that the distribution of students by
country and rank/grade, will not have a negative impact on the mission of the Institute.
g. Overall impression. It continues to be the view of the Board that the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is a success story, in terms of its diligent
pursuit of its mission of teaching professional military values, including human rights and
democracy. The Board offers its congratulations to COL Gilberto Pérez for his
accomplishments during his first nine months in post, and looks forward to continued
improvement at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
19. The statutory tasks of the Board having been completed, the Chairman returned
presiding authority to the Acting Designated Federal Officer, and LTC (P) Gould
adjourned the meeting of the Board of Visitors at approximately 1130, 2 December 2004.
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 15 of 20
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, to the best of our knowledge, the foregoing Report is
complete and accurate.
Linda L. Gould
Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army
Alternate Designated Federal Officer
and Executive Secretary
to the Board of Visitors
Steven M. Schneebaum
Board of Visitors
Members of the Board have individually reviewed this Report, and to the extent possible,
their additions and corrections have been incorporated. Under the Board’s by-laws,
Members are entitled to have their own views on any subject discussed by the Board
included in the Report to the Secretary. No Member indicated that he or she wished to
submit such a statement.
. of D
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 16 of 20
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 17 of 20
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 18 of 20
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 19 of 20
Case: 14-16432, 09/30/2016, ID: 10143409, DktEntry: 27-2, Page 20 of 20
WHINSEC BOARD OF VISITORS MEETING
Date: 21 November 2014
Location: Bradley Hall, 7301 Baltzell Ave., Bldg. 396, Fort Benning, GA 31905
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) opens meeting
Introductions and welcome of new Board members, selfintroduction by other attendees, and opening remarks by the
Dr. Mendelson Forman
WHINSEC Commandant Update
Dr. Mendelson Forman
Dr. Mendelson Forman
State Department Western Hemisphere Update
U.S. Northern Command Update
U.S. Southern Command Update
OSD (Policy) Update
Public comment period as announced e, Nthe Federal Register
i v. D
Discussion:in Camera items to be carried forward, including
Subcommittees; Proposed dates for next Board meeting; Chair
and Vice Chair nominations/elections; Other matters Chair/DFO
deem appropriate for consideration
Dr. Mendelson Forman
Designated Federal Officer adjourns meeting
Civilian – Business attire
Military – ACU
APPROVED BY DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER:
Daniel M. Klippstein
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?