How to crack an army’s code of silence

The new Army has been born.

And this new army is one that is more open to dissent than it has been in years.

But it’s also one that, at its core, has the same kind of code of secrecy that has ruled the Army since the 1980s.

It is also one with a certain level of suspicion for its leaders, and that mistrust is growing, thanks in part to a recent revelation that the head of the Joint Special Operations Command, General John Allen, met with top Taliban commanders in Afghanistan to discuss a deal to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011.

(The deal, known as the Joint Strike Force, or JSOC, was a major part of the U.S. war effort against the Taliban and al-Qaida.)

The JSOC has been criticized for a number of things, most notably for its use of harsh interrogation techniques, but the one thing that has remained constant since the early 1990s has been the secrecy of the unit.

The unit was founded by Army Gen. Donald Rumsfeld and is led by Allen, who, after taking the helm in 2011, had a hand in crafting the JSOC’s interrogation techniques and in drafting a strategy to attack the Taliban.

Now, with the Army’s new commander in chief, Gen. John Kelly, tasked with running the military’s spy agency, the National Security Agency, the military has turned to the JSOS to build a new code of conduct.

Kelly has been an outspoken critic of the war in Afghanistan, particularly for the JSOTs decision to kill American citizens.

He also was an outspoken advocate of ending the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and has been a critic of Obama’s handling of the refugee crisis in the Middle East.

Now he’s taking on the Army, which has been running the JSOP for more than a decade.

As the military prepares to enter its 10th year of operations in Afghanistan next year, its code of honor will be tested as the Army investigates claims of abuse and misconduct against officers, some of whom have been prosecuted.

Some of those allegations, though not all, have been brought to light in the course of this series.

(There is also the matter of the Army having failed to protect whistleblowers in the field.)

But even if Kelly’s code is not perfect, it is the code of the century, and a major departure from past Army practices.

The new code will include a new provision for the investigation of officers and other members of the command structure.

In particular, the new code prohibits retaliation against any civilian who reports abuse.

In the past, those who accused the Army of wrongdoing had their cases referred to the Pentagon’s Office of Special Investigations, which investigates allegations of misconduct against the military, and then to the Army Criminal Investigation Command.

In recent years, though, the Office of Military Criminal Investigative Services, or MOIC, has been tasked with investigating misconduct allegations and, as a result, has faced criticism for being too focused on its own cases.

MOIC has said that it will be looking at whether the Army has committed misconduct.

But as we’ve previously reported, the Army also has a much broader investigation authority, including investigations of the broader civilian military workforce.

That means the military is not limited to cases involving the military and civilians, and, at the same time, it has broad authority to investigate other matters, including whether an individual has been subjected to torture, or whether they have committed a crime, even if the accused is not the head or top officer.

While the Army will still be able to investigate all allegations of abuse, the code will give MOIC more power to investigate the misconduct of the general officer commanding an unit.

This means the Army is also going to be looking into allegations of harassment, which it can now do by sending an investigator to the unit to see if the individual has suffered any sort of physical or sexual abuse.

This, too, is a change from the past.

MOI investigators would have to first go to the commander in charge of an entire unit to file a complaint.

The code also allows for investigations into the conduct of officers within an unit, and for complaints against officers who are not the chief or top commander.

That could make it difficult for the Army to discipline officers who have done nothing wrong, as it does with some officers in civilian life.

And it’s not clear whether the code would apply to civilian employees.

If an employee is disciplined, the complaint can be brought directly to the civilian chain of command.

But the Army can’t discipline the individual for not reporting the abuse.

It also is unclear whether the new commander will be allowed to take any action against the individual, such as discipline, that would be against the code.

That’s not all.

As we’ve reported before, the JSO is currently investigating allegations that an Army intelligence officer was sexually harassed by another officer and, in the process, retaliated against the