U.S. Army on Identification of Deceased Personnel
The identification of deceased military and civilian personnel killed on or around the battlefield is one of the grim functions routinely performed in wartime.
It is so grim, in fact, that the U.S. Army decided it should be shielded from public awareness.
A U.S. Army Field Manual on “Identification of Deceased Personnel” (large pdf) was not supposed to be made publicly available. The manual is not classified, nor does it impinge on personal privacy. It is rather less graphic than a typical medical school anatomy textbook. But to the Army, it is still not suitable for public consumption.
The cover page says it should be destroyed by any method that will “prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.”
“This [manual] begins with discussions of basic gross human anatomy, antemortem and perimortem trauma, human osteology, and dental anatomy and morphology. These chapters provide the mortuary affairs specialist with the basic knowledge to proficiently assist human identification experts (such as the forensic pathologist, medical examiner, forensic odontologist, and forensic anthropologist) with identifying human remains.”
A copy of the proscribed manual was obtained by Secrecy News. Thanks to Entropic Memes.
See “Identification of Deceased Personnel,” U.S. Army Field Manual 4-20.65, July 2005 (220 pages in a very large 32 MB PDF file).
Through investments in infrastructure for heat safety, Congress can save lives, protect the economy, and enhance resilience nationwide.
A shift toward more circular, transparent systems would not only reduce waste and increase efficiency, but also unlock new business models, strengthen supply chain resilience, and give consumers better, more reliable information about the products they choose.
Could the largest U.S. public-private critical minerals deal of the decade be a model for the future?
“My job is to make that space honest, human, and useful by always asking questions, listening longer, and following the science. So that our decisions are grounded in evidence and driven by care.”