Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Report Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in u.s. Custody 2008

Committee on Armed Services United States Senate Report Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in u.s. Custody 2008

• Topics: Military, Military Prisons

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

llOTH CONGRESS

2nd Session

}

COMMITTEE PRINT

{

INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT
OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY

REPORT
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

NOVEMBER 20, 2008

COMMITIEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JOSEPH 1. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JIM WEBB, Virginia
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD D. DEBoBES, Staff Director
MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director

INVESTIGATION STAFF

JOSEPH M. BRYAN, Majority Professional Staff Member
ILONA R. COHEN, Majority Counsel
MARK R. JACOBSON, Majority Professional Staff Member

WILLIAM M. CANIANO, Minority Professional Staff Member
DAVID M. MORRISS, Minority Counsel
BRYAN D. PARKER, Minority Investigative Counsel

BRIAN F. SEBOLD, Staff Assistant

(II)

UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Contents
Note on Source Material Used in the Preparation of the Report (U)

II.

List of Acronyms Used in the Report (U)

Executive Summary and Conclusions (U)

xii

Early Influences on Interrogation Policy (U)

Redefining the Legal Framework For the Treatment of Detainees (U)

Department of Defense Office of General Counsel Seeks Information from the Joint
Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) (U)

JPRA Collaboration with Other Government Agencies (OGAs) (U)

JPRA Support to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) (U)

JPRA Recommendationsfor GTMO (U)

Colonel Herrington's Assessment of GTMO (U)

JPRA Prepares Draft Exploitation Plan (U)

Development of New Interrogation Authorities (U)

CIA's Interrogation Program and the Interrogation ofAbu Zubaydah (U)

JPRA Assistance to Another Government Agency (U)

Senior SERE Psychologist Detailed From Department ofDefense to Other Government
Agency (U)

Department of Defense General Counsel Seeks Information on SERE Techniques From
JPRA (U)

The Department of Justice Changes the Rules (U)

JPRA 's Special Program In Support o f . (U)

III.

viii

August 2002 Training Proposal (U)

JPRA Creates Project 22B (U)

Guantanamo Bay as a "Battle Lab" for New Interrogation Techniques (U)
A.

GTMO Stands Up a Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) (U)

UNCLASSIFIED

38
38

UNCLASSIFIED
B.

IV.

U.S. Southern Command Seeks External Review ofGTMO (U)

.42

GTMO Personnel Attend Training at Fort Bragg (U)

Delegation ofSenior Government Lawyers Visits Guantanamo (U)

JTF-/70 BSCT Produces Interrogation Policy Memo (U)

CIA Lawyer Advises GTMO on Interrogations (U)

DoD Takes Lead on the Interrogation of Mohammed al Khatani (U)

GTMO Seeks Authority to Use Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U)

GTMO Requests Counter-Resistance Techniques Influenced by SERE (U)

GTMO Staff Judge Advocate Conducts "Legal Review ofAggressive Interrogation
Techniques" (U)

Chain of Command Considers the Requestfor Interrogation Techniques as CITF and FBI
Raise Objections (U)

Military Services React to GTMO Requestfor Interrogation Techniques (U)

Department ofDefense General Counsel Quashes Joint Staff Legal Review (U)

GTMO and JPRA Plan for Additional Interrogation Training (U)

Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) Personnel Contact the U.S. Army Special
Operations Command (USASOC) (U)

Command Change at Guantanamo as Dispute over Aggressive Techniques Continues (U)

Major General Geoffrey Miller Takes Command ofJTF-GTMO (U)

Khatani Interrogation Plan Fuels Dispute Over Aggressive Techniques (U)

JTF-GTMO Staff Circulate Khatani Interrogation Plan (U)

CITF and FBI Object to Proposed Interrogation Techniques (U)

JTF-GTMO Briefs DoD General Counsel's Office on Interrogation Plan (U)......... 79

"Final" Khatani Interrogation Plan (U)

FBI and ClTF Continue to Object to Khatani Interrogation Plan (U)

Khatani Interrogation Begins, CITF Directed To "Stand Clear" (U)

UNCLASSIFIED
ii

UNCLASSIFIED
7.

Techniques Used During Khatani Interrogation (U)

,..88

VI.

JPRA's Assistance to Another Government Agency (U)

VII.

Secretary Rumsfeld Approves Interrogation Authorities, GTMOPlans to Implement SERE
Techniques (U)
'"

Secretary ofDefense Authorizes Aggressive Techniquesfor use at GTMO (U)

JTF-GTMO Develops Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Use ofSERE
Techniques in Interrogations (U)
,

SERE School Trainers Provide Instruction for GTMO Interrogators (U)

103

Navy General Counsel Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques, Secretary
,
Rumsfeld Rescinds Authority (U)

105

National Security Council (NSC) Principals Discuss DoD Interrogations (U)

109

VIII.

New Interrogation Policy Developed for GTMO (U)
A.

The Working Group Solicits Information on Interrogation Techniques
1.

3.
B.

IX.

110
lI0

The Defense Intelligence Agency Provides Information on Specific Interrogation
Techniques (U)

110

The Working Group Solicits Information About Interrogation Techniques From
'"
CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM (U)

113

The Working Group Requests Informationfrom JPRA (U)

116

Department ofJustice Office of Legal Counsel's Analysis Is Presented As Controlling
,
Authority (U)

118

Working Group Drafts Report Recommending Interrogation Techniques (U).•..•.......•.•..... 122

SOUTHCOM Presses for Additional Techniques (U)

JPRA Briefs Members ofthe Working Group on SERE Techniques, Including Physical
Pressures (U)..........................•..............................................•....................... 130

The Working Group Finalizes Its Report and the Secretary of Defense Issues a New
"
Interrogation Policy For GTMO (U)

Aggressive Interrogations at GTMO (U)

128

130
132

Allegations of Detainee Mistreatment (U)

132

Special Interrogation Plans Modeled on Khatani Interrogation (U)

135

JTF-GTMO Plans for Interrogation ofSlahi (U)

UNCLASSIFIED
iii

UNCLASSIFIED
2.

JTF-GTMO Formally Submits Special Interrogation Planfor Slahi (ISN 760)
(U)................•....•.•.•..........•....•...•..•...•..•..•.......•.•..•........•....•..•.........•136

Interrogation Begins Before the Special Interrogation Plan Is Approved (U)....•...• 138

Special Interrogation Plan Approved and Implemented Despite Apparent
Cooperation (U)

140

FBI Concerns with Special Interrogation (U)

141

Special Project at GTMO Uses Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U)

141

CITF Reissues Orderfor Agents to "Stand Clear" ofAggressive Interrogations
(U).........................................................................•.........................143

XI.

XII.

GTMO Seeks Approvalfor Two Additional Special Interrogation Plans (U)

143

Special Interrogation Plan #3 (U)

143

Special Interrogation Plan #4 (U)

144

SOUTHCOM and OSD SO/LIC Recommend Approval ofSpecial
Interrogation Plans #3 & #4 (U)

145

DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Withdraws March 14,2003 Legal Opinion Governing DoD
Interrogations (U)

146

Development oflnterrogation Policy in Afghanistan (U)

148

Assessment Team Visit to Guantanamo Bay (U)

149

The Deaths ofDilawar and Habibullah (U)

151

Questions Raised About Task Force Participation in OGA Interrogations (U)

152

January 2003 Task Force Interrogation SOP (Afghanistan) (U)

153

CJTF-/80 Produces Memorandum on Interrogation Techniques (U)

154

CENTCOM Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques (U)

156

Development of Interrogation Policy in Iraq (U)
A.

Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Policies (U)

157
158

SMU Task Force Uses Afghanistan Interrogation Policy (U)

158

OGA Comments on SMU TF Interrogation Techniques (U)

159

UNCLASSIFIED
iv

UNCLASSIFIED

July 2003 Interrogation SOP Draftedfor Iraq SMU TF (U)

J59

Iraq Survey Group Concerns with SMU TF Detainee Treatment (U)

J62

Interrogation Policies for Conventional Forces in Iraq (U)...............................•.......... J 64
J.

CJTF-7 Stands Up (Summer 2003) (U)

J64

Interrogation Operations Begin at Abu Ghraib (U)

J 65

51 y h MI Battalion at Abu Ghraib Seeks Additional Guidance (U)

J66

51yh MI BN Proposes Interrogation Policy (U)

J66

CJTF-7 Solicits "Wish List" of Interrogation Techniques (U)

J 67

Interrogation OIC at Abu Ghraib Resubmits the Proposed Interrogation Policy for
51yh MI BN(U)
J69

JPRA Provides "Offensive" SERE Training in Iraq (U)

J 70

Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq Seeks Assistancefrom JPRA (U)

J 70

Awareness of the JPRA Trip to Iraq at Headquarters, Joint Forces Command
(JFCOM) (U)

J7J

JPRA Provides Interrogation Support to the Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq
(U)

J73

JPRA Team Authorized to Participate in Interrogations (U)

J 74

JPRA Present as Interrogator Uses Stress Positions and Slaps (U)

J 76

JPRA Team Authorized to Use SERE Techniques (U)

J 79

JPRA Team ChiefSeeks Legal Guidance (U)

J 79

JPRA Training Manager and Contractor Participate in an Interrogation (U)......... J8J

JPRA Team Chief Objects to SMU TF Interrogation (U).......•.•..•..••...•.......•.•.• J 82

JO.

JPRA Develops a Concept of Operations (CONOP) (U)

J84

JJ.

JPRA Team Leaves Iraq (U)

J86

J2.

U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Reviews JPRA Concept Of Operations
(CONOP) (U)

J 87

JFCOM Verifies Team Chief's Account of Events in Iraq (U)

J88

J3.

UNCLASSIFIED
v

UNCLASSIFIED
D.

Major General Geoffrey Miller Leads GTMO Assessment Team to Iraq (U)
1.

CJTF-7 Commander Identifies Deficiencies (U)

189

GTMO Assessment Team Travels to Iraq (U)

190

GTMO Team Visits Iraq Survey Group (ISG) (U)

191

GTMO Team Visits Special Mission Unit Task Force (U)

193

GTMO Team Discusses Interrogations with CJTF-7 (U)

194

GTMO Commander Recommends CJTF-7 Develop an Interrogation Policy (U)...... 197

JTF-GTMO Assessment Team Produces Trip Report (U)

198

MG Miller Briefs Senior DoD Officials on Assessment Visit (U)

199

Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy Established (U)
1.

XIII.

200

CJTF-7 Commander Issues Policy Including Aggressive Interrogation Techniques
200

(U)

189

Interrogation and Counter Resistance Policy Implemented at Abu Ghraib (U)....... 201

CENTCOM Raises Concerns About CJTF-7 Policy (U)

202

CJTF-7 Issues New Interrogation Policy (U)

204

SMU Task Force Issues a New Interrogation SOP (U)

Interrogation Techniques and Detainee Mistreatment at Abu Ghraib (U)

206
207

Use of Military Working Dogs (U)

208

Stress Positions and Physical Training (U)

210

Removal of Clothing (U)

211

Sleep Adjustment!Sleep Management (U)

213

Sensory Deprivation and Isolation (U)

215

"Lost Opportunity" to Fix Problems at Abu Ghraib (U)

216

Retired Army Intelligence Officer Leads Assessment Team (U)

216

Assessment Team Visits Abu Ghraib and CJTF-7 Headquarters (U)

217

UNCLASSIFIED
vi

UNCLASSIFIED

XIV.

XV.

Team Hears Reports of Detainee Mistreatment (U)

218

COL Herrington Reports Findings (U)

218

Interrogation Policies Following Abu Ghraib (U)

219

February 2004 CJSOTF Interrogation SOP (U)

219

Interrogation Plan in Iraq Derivedfrom SERE (U)

221

March 2004 Interrogation SOP for Conventional Forces in Afghanistan (U)

221

Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Polices (U)

222

CENTCOM Seeks JPRA Interrogation Assistance in Afghanistan (U)....................•.............224
A.

May 2004 CENTCOM Request (U)

CENTCOM Makes Another Request for JPRA Interrogation Assistance in Afghanistan

224

(U)

228

U.S. Joint Forces Command Issues Policy Guidance For JPRA "Offensive" Support (U)...230

UNCLASSIFIED
vii

UNCLASSIFIED
Note on Source Material Used in the Preparation of the Report
(U) Over the course ofthe its inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody, the
Committee reviewed more than 200,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents,
including detention and interrogation policies, memoranda, electronic communications, training
manuals, and the results of previous investigations into detainee abuse. The majority ofthose
documents were provided to the Committee by the Department of Defense. The Committee also
reviewed documents provided by the Department of Justice, documents in the public domain, a
small number of documents provided by individuals, and a number of published secondary
sources including books and articles in popular magazines and scholarly journals.
(U) The Committee interviewed over 70 individuals in connection with its inquiry. Most
interviews were of current or former Department of Defense employees, though the Committee
also interviewed current and/or former employees ofthe Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The Committee issued two subpoenas and held two hearings to take
testimony from subpoenaed witnesses. The Committee also sent written questions to more than
200 individuals. The Committee held public hearings on June 17, 2008 and September 25, 2008.
(U) Military personnel referred to in the report are identified by their rank at the time the
events in question took place.

UNCLASSIFIED
viii

UNCLASSIFIED
List of Acronyms (U)

AAR
AOR
BCP
BDE
BN
BSCT
CCJ-2
CENTCOM
CFLCC
CIA

CID
CITF
CJ-2
CJ2X
CJCS
CJTF-180
CJTF-7
CONOP
CTC
DHS(DH)
DIA

DoD
DoJ
DPMO
DUC
EPW
FBI
FM34-52
G-2
GTMO (GITMO)
HUMINT
HVD
HVf
ICE
ICRC

After Action Report
Area of Responsibility
Bagram Collection Point, Bagram Air Field, Mghanistan
Brigade
Battalion
Behavioral Science Consultation Team
Intelligence directorate at U. S. CENTCOM.
U.S. Central Command
Coalition Forces Land Component Command
Central Intelligence Agency
Army Criminal Investigative Division
Criminal Investigation Task Force
Combined J-2 (Intelligence directorate at combined organization)
Combined J-2X; See J-2X
Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff
Combined Joint Task Force 180
Combined Joint Task Force 7
Concept of Operations
Central Intelligence Agency's CounterTerrorist Center
Defense Human Intelligence Service, part ofDIA
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
Designated Unlawful Combatant
Enemy Prisoner of War
Federal Bureau of Investigation
US Army Field Manual on Interrogation (1987, 1992)
Intelligence directorate at Army Staff
U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay
Human Intelligence
High Value Detainee
High Value Target
Interrogation Control Element
International Committee ofthe Red Cross

UNCLASSIFIED
ix

UNCLASSIFIED
IROE
ISG
ISN
J-2
J-2X

J-3
JAG
JFCOM
JIOC
JIG
JPRA

JSOC
JTF-160
JTF-170
JTF-GTMO
MWD
NCIS
OEF
OGA
01

OIC
OIF
OLC
OSD
OSI
OSO
OTJAG

PAD
POW
PRA

ROE
S-3
SERE
SJA

SMU
SOILIC
SOCOM

Interrogation Rules of Engagement
Iraq Survey Group
Internment Serial Number
Intelligence directorate within a joint organization, e.g. Joint Staff
Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence officer or organization
Operations directorate within ajoint organization, e.g. Joint Staff
Judge Advocate General
U.S. Joint Forces Command
Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center
Joint Interrogation Group
Joint Personnel Recovery Agency
Joint Special Operations Command
Joint Task Force 160 at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay
Joint Task Force 170 at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay
Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay
Military Working Dog
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Operation Enduring Freedom
Other Government Agency
Operating Instruction
Officer in Charge
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Air Force Office of Special Investigations
Operational Support Office (JPRA)
Office of The Judge Advocate General
Psychological Applications Directorate
Prisoner of War
Personnel Recovery Agency
Rules of Engagement
Anny operations directorate at brigade level or below
Survival Evasion Resistance Escape
StaffJudge Advocate
Special Mission Unit
Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict
U. S. Special Operations Command

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
SOP
SOUTHCOM
S-V91

Standard Operating Procedure
U. S. Southern Command
Department of Defense High Risk Survival Training

TF
TJAG
TTPs
UCMJ
USASOC
USDI
VTC
WMD

Task Force
The Judge Advocate General
Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
Uniform Code of Military Justice
U. S. Army Special Operations Command
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Video Teleconference
Weapons of Mass Destruction

UNCLASSIFIED
xi

UNCLASSIFIED

Executive Summary

"What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight ... is how we behave. In
everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we
treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are
warriors, we are also all human beings. "
-- General David Petraeus
May 10,2007

(U) The collection oftimely and accurate intelligence is critical to the safety of U.S.

personnel deployed abroad and to the security ofthe American people here at home. The
methods by which we elicit intelligence information from detainees in our custody affect not
only the reliability ofthat information, but our broader efforts to win hearts and minds and attract
allies to our side.
(U) AI Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They
are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam.
Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to
cooperation, and creates new enemies. In fact, the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate
"Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" cited "pervasive anti U.S.
sentiment among most Muslims" as an underlying factor fueling the spread ofthe global jihadist
movement. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services
Committee in June 2008 that "there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the fITst
and second identifiable causes of U. S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in
recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo."
(U) The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of
"a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States
government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to
create the appearance oftheir legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts
damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand
of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product ofthe
Committee's inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.

UNCLASSIFIED
xii

UNCLASSIFIED

Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques (U)
(U) On February 7,2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third
Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban
detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third
Geneva Convention. The President's order closed off application of Common Article 3 ofthe
Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to
al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. While the President's order stated that, as "a matter of policy, the
United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent
appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of
the Geneva Conventions," the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal
compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the
treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
(U) In December 2001, more than a month before the President signed his memorandum,
the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel's Office had already solicited information on
detainee "exploitation" from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), an agency whose
expertise was in training American personnel to withstand interrogation techniques considered
illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
(U) JPRA is the DoD agency that oversees military Survival Evasion Resistance and
Escape (SERE) training. During the resistance phase of SERE training, U.S. military personnel
are exposed to physical and psychological pressures (SERE techniques) designed to simulate
conditions to which they might be subject if taken prisoner by enemies that did not abide by the
Geneva Conventions. As one JPRA instructor explained, SERE training is "based on illegal
exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years." The techniques used in SERE school,
based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean war to elicit false
confessions, include stripping students oftheir clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting
hoods over their heads, disrupting their sleep, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud
music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. It can also include face
and body slaps and until recently, for some who attended the Navy's SERE school, it included
waterboarding.
(U) Typically, those who play the part of interrogators in SERE school neither are trained
interrogators nor are they qualified to be. These role players are not trained to obtain reliable
intelligence information from detainees. Their job is to train our personnel to resist providing
reliable infonnation to our enemies. As the Deputy Commander for the Joint Forces Command
(JFCOM), JPRA's higher headquarters, put it: "the expertise of JPRA lies in training personnel
how to respond and resist interrogations - not in how to conduct interrogations." Given JPRA's
role and expertise, the request from the DoD General Counsel's office was unusual. In fact, the
Committee is not aware of any similar request prior to December 2001. But while it may have
been the frrst, that was not the last time that a senior government official contacted JPRA for

UNCLASSIFIED
xiii

UNCLASSIFIED
advice on using SERE methods offensively. In fact, the call from the DoD General Counsel's
office marked just the beginning of JPRA's support of U.S. government interrogation efforts.

Senior Officials Seek SERE Techniques and Discuss Detainee Interrogations (U)
(U) Beginning in the spring of 2002 and extending for the next two years, JPRA
supported U.S. government efforts to interrogate detainees. Duringthat same period, senior
government officials solicited JPRA's knowledge and its direct support for interrogations. While
much ofthe information relating to JPRA's offensive activities and the influence of SERE
techniques on interrogation policies remains classified, unclassified information provides a
window into the extent ofthose activities.
(U) JPRA's Chief of Staff, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Baumgartner testified that in late
2001 or early 2002, JPRA conducted briefings of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) personnel
on detainee resistance, techniques, and information on detainee exploitation.

(U) On April 16, 2002, Dr. Bruce Jessen, the senior SERE psychologist at JPRA,
circulated a draft exploitation plan to JPRA Commander Colonel Randy Mouhon and other
senior officials at the agency. The contents of that plan remain classified but Dr. Jessen's
initiative is indicative ofthe interest of JPRA's senior leadership in expanding the agency's role.
(U) One opportunity came in July 2002. That month, DoD Deputy General Counsel for
Intelligence Richard Shiffrin contacted JPRA seeking information on SERE physical pressures
and interrogation techniques that had been used against Americans. Mr. Shiffiin called JPRA
after discussions with William "Jim" Haynes II, the DoD General Counsel.
(U) In late July, JPRA provided the General Counsel's office with several documents,
including excerpts from SERE instructor lesson plans, a list of physical and psychological
pressures used in SERE resistance training, and a memo from a SERE psychologist assessing the
long-term psychological effects of SERE resistance training on students and the effects of
waterboarding. The list of SERE techniques included such methods as sensory deprivation,
sleep disruption, stress positions, waterboarding, and slapping. It also made reference to a
section ofthe JPRA instructor manual that discusses "coercive pressures," such as keeping the
lights on at all times, and treating a person like an animal. JPRA's Chief of Staff, Lieutenant
Colonel Daniel Baumgartner, who spoke with Mr. Shiffiin at the time, thought the General
Counsel's office was asking for the information on exploitation and physical pressures to use
them in interrogations and he said that JFCOM gave approval to provide the agency the
information. Mr. Shiffiin, the DoD Deputy General Counsel for Intelligence, confmned that a
purpose ofthe request was to "reverse engineer" the techniques. Mr. Haynes could not recall
what he did with the information provided by JPRA.

(U) Memos from Lieutenant Colonel Baumgartner to the Office of Secretary of Defense
General Counsel stated that JPRA would "continue to offer exploitation assistance to those
government organizations charged with the mission of gleaning intelligence from enemy

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
detainees." Lieutenant Colonel Baumgartner testified that he provided another government
agency the same information he sent to the DoD General Counsel's office.
(U) Mr. Haynes was not the only senior official considering new interrogation techniques

for use against detainees. Members ofthe President's Cabinet and other senior officials attended
meetings in the White House where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor, said that, "in the spring
of2002, CIA sought policy approval from the National Security Council (NSC) to begin an
interrogation progTam for high-level al-Qaida terrorists." Secretary Rice said that she asked
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to briefNSC Principals on the program and asked
the Attorney General John Ashcroft "personally to review and confrrm the legal advice prepared
by the Office of Legal Counsel." She also said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
participated in the NSC review ofthe CIA's program.
(U) Asked whether she attended meetings where SERE training was discussed, Secretary

Rice stated that she recalled being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to
"certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques." National Security Council (NSC)
Legal Advisor, John Bellinger, said that he was present in meetings "at which SERE training was
discussed."
Department of Justice Redermes Torture (D)
(U) On August 1, 2002, just a week after JPRA provided the DoD General Counsel's
office the list of SERE techniques and the memo on the psychological effects of SERE training,
the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued two legal opinions. The
opinions were issued after consultation with senior Administration attorneys, including thenWhite House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-Counsel to the Vice President David
Addington. Both memos were signed by then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel Jay Bybee. One opinion, commonly known as the first Bybee memo, was addressed to
Judge Gonzales and provided OLe's opinion on standards of conduct in interrogation required
under the federal torture statute. That memo concluded:

[F]or an act to constitute torture as defmed in [the federal torture statute], it must
inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be
equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as
organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental
pain or suffering to amount to torture under [the federal torture statute], it must
result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for
months or even years.
(U) In his book The Terror Presidency, Jack Goldsmith, the former Assistant Attorney
General of the OLC who succeeded Mr. Bybee in that job, described the memo's conclusions:

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
Violent acts aren't necessarily torture; if you do torture, you probably have a
defense; and even if you don't have a defense, the torture law doesn't apply if you
act under the color of presidential authority.
(U) The other OLC opinion issued on August 1,2002 is known commonly as the Second
Bybee memo. That opinion, which responded to a request from the CI~ addressed the legality
of specific interrogation tactics. While the full list oftechniques remains classified, a publicly
released CIA document indicates that waterboarding was among those analyzed and approved.
CIA Director General Michael Hayden stated in public testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on February 5, 2008 that waterboarding was used by the CIA And Steven Bradbury,
the current Assistant Attorney General ofthe OLC, testified before the House Judiciary
Committee on February 14,2008 that the CIA's use of waterboarding was "adapted from the
SERE training program."
(U) Before drafting the opinions, Mr. Y 00, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
OLC, had met with Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel
to the Vice President, to discuss the subjects he intended to address in the opinions. In testimony
before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Y00 refused to say whether or not he ever discussed
or received information about SERE techniques as the memos were being drafted. When asked
whether he had discussed SERE techniques with Judge Gonzales, Mr. Addington, Mr. Yoo, Mr.
Rizzo or other senior administration lawyers, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes testified that he
"did discuss SERE techniques with other people in the administration." NSC Legal Advisor
John Bellinger said that "some of the legal analyses of proposed interrogation techniques that
were prepared by the Department of Justice... did refer to the psychological effects ofresistance
training."
(U) In fact, Jay Bybee the Assistant Attorney General who signed the two OLC legal
opinions said that he saw an assessment of the psychological effects of military resistance
training in July 2002 in meetings in his office with John Yoo and two other OLC attorneys.
Judge Bybee said that he used that assessment to inform the August 1, 2002 OLC legal opinion
that has yet to be publicly released. Judge Bybee also recalled discussing detainee interrogations
in a meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft and John Y 00 in late July 2002, prior to
signing the OLC opinions. Mr. Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, said that "the NSC's
Principals reviewed CIA's proposed program on several occasions in 2002 and 2003" and that he
"expressed concern that the proposed CIA interrogation techniques comply with applicable U. S.
law, including our international obligations."

JPRA and CIA Influence Department of Defense Interrogation Policies (U)
(U) As senior government lawyers were preparing to redefine torture, JPRA - responding
to a request from U.S. Southern Command's Joint Task Force 170 (JTF-170) at Guantanamo Bay
(GTMO) - was finalizing plans to train JTF-170 personnel. During the week of September 16,
2002, a group of interrogators and behavioral scientists from GTMO travelled to Fort Bragg,
North Carolina and attended training conducted by instructors from JPRA's SERE school. On
September 25, 2002, just days after GTMO staff returned from that training, a delegation of

UNCLASSIFIED
xvi

UNCLASSIFIED
senior Administration lawyers, including Mr. Haynes, Mr. Rizzo, and Mr. Addington, visited
GTMO.
(U) A week after the visit from those senior lawyers, two GTMO behavioral scientists
who had attended the JPRA-Ied training at Fort Bragg drafted a memo proposing new
interrogation techniques for use at GTMO. According to one ofthose two behavioral scientists,
by early October 2002, there was "increasing pressure to get 'tougher' with detainee
interrogations." He added that ifthe interrogation policy memo did not contain coercive
techniques, then it "wasn't going to go very far."
(U) JPRA was not the only outside organization that provided advice to GTMO on
aggressive techniques. On October 2, 2002, Jonathan Fredman, who was chief counsel to the
CIA's CounterTerrorist Center, attended a meeting ofGTMO staff. Minutes of that meeting
indicate that it was dominated by a discussion of aggressive interrogation techniques including
sleep deprivation, death threats, and waterboarding, which was discussed in relation to its use in
SERE training. Mr. Fredman's advice to GTMO on applicable legal obligations was similar to
the analysis ofthose obligations in OLC's first Bybee memo. According to the meeting minutes,
Mr. Fredman said that ''the language ofthe statutes is written vaguely ... Severe physical pain
described as anything causing permanent damage to major organs or body parts. Mental torture
[is] described as anything leading to permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality."
Mr. Fredman said simply, "It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing
it wrong."
(U) On October 11,2002, Major General Michael Dunlavey, the Commander of JTF-170
at Guantanamo Bay, sent a memo to General James Hill, the Commander of US. Southern
Command (SOUfHCOM) requesting authority to use aggressive interrogation techniques.
Several of the techniques requested were similar to techniques used by lPRA and the military
services in SERE training, including stress positions, exploitation of detainee fears (such as fear
of dogs), removal of clothing, hooding, deprivation of light and sound, and the so-called wet
towel treatment or the waterboard. Some ofthe techniques were even referred to as "those used
in US. military interrogation resistance training." Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, GTMO's
Staff Judge Advocate, wrote an analysis justifYing the legality of the techniques, though she
expected that a broader legal review conducted at more senior levels would follow her own. On
October 25, 2002, General Hill forwarded the GTMO request from Major General Dunlavey to
General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Days later, the Joint Staff
solicited the views of the military services on the request.
(U) Plans to use aggressive interrogation techniques generated concerns by some at
GTMO. The Deputy Commander ofthe Department of Defense's Criminal Investigative Task
Force (CITF) at GTMO told the Committee that SERE techniques were "developed to better
prepare U.S. military personnel to resist interrogations and not as a means of obtaining reliable
information" and that "CITF was troubled with the rationale that techniques used to harden
resistance to interrogations would be the basis for the utilization oftechniques to obtain
information." Concerns were not limited to the effectiveness of the techniques in obtaining
reliable information; GTMO's request gave rise to significant legal concerns as well.
UNCLASSIFIED
xvii

UNCLASSIFIED

Military Lawyers Raise Red Flags and Joint Staff Review Quashed (D)
(U) In early November 2002, in a series of memos responding to the Joint Staff's call for
comments on GTMO's request, the military services identified serious legal concerns about the
techniques and called for additional analysis.
(U) The Air Force cited "serious concerns regarding the legality of many ofthe proposed
techniques" and stated that "techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet
the requirements outlined in the military order to treat detainees humanely..." The Air Force
also called for an in depth legal review ofthe request.
(U) CITF's Chief Legal Advisor wrote that certain techniques in GTMO's October 11,
2002 request "may subject service members to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military
Justice]," called "the utility and legality of applying certain techniques" in the request
"questionable," and stated that he could not "advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that
is predicated upon the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not
aware of how we conduct our business."
(U) The Chief ofthe Army's International and Operational Law Division wrote that
techniques like stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and use of phobias to
induce stress "crosses the line of 'humane' treatment," would "likely be considered
maltreatment" under the UCMJ, and "may violate the torture statute." The Army labeled
GTMO's request "legally insufficient" and called for additional review.
(U) The Navy recommended a "more detailed interagency legal and policy review" of the
request. And the Marine Corps expressed strong reservations, stating that several techniques in
the request "arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible
prosecution." The Marine Corps also said the request was not "legally sufficient," and like the
other services, called for "a more thorough legal and policy review."
(U) Then-Captain (now Rear Admiral) Jane Dalton, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that her staff discussed the military services' concerns with the
DoD General Counsel's Office at the time and that the DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes was
aware ofthe services' concerns. Mr. Haynes, on the other hand, testified that he did not know
that the memos from the military services existed (a statement he later qualified by stating that he
was not sure he knew they existed). Eliana Davidson, the DoD Associate Deputy General
Counsel for International Affairs, said that she told the General Counsel that the GTMO request
needed further assessment. Mr. Haynes did not recall Ms. Davidson telling him that.
(U) Captain Dalton, who was the Chairman's Legal Counsel, said that she had her own
concerns with the GTMO request and directed her staffto initiate a thorough legal and policy
review ofthe techniques. That review, however, was cut short. Captain Dalton said that General
Myers returned from a meeting and advised her that Mr. Haynes wanted her to stop her review,

UNCLASSIFIED
xviii

UNCLASSIFIED
in part because of concerns that people were going to see the GTMO request and the military
services' analysis of it. Neither General Myers nor Mr. Haynes recalled cutting short the Dalton
review, though neither has challenged Captain Dalton's recollection. Captain Dalton testified
that this occasion marked the only time she had ever been told to stop analyzing a request that
came to her for review.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Approves Aggressive Techniques (U)
(U) With respect to GTMO's October 11, 2002 request to use aggressive interrogation
techniques, Mr. Haynes said that "there was a sense by the DoD Leadership that this decision
was taking too long" and that Secretary Rumsfeld told his senior advisors "I need a
recommendation" On November 27, 2002, the Secretary got one. Notwithstanding the serious
legal concerns raised by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the
Secretary, recommending that he approve all but three ofthe eighteen techniques in the GTMO
request. Techniques such as stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of
dogs), and deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli were all recommended for approval.
(U) Mr. Haynes's memo indicated that he had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and General
Myers and that he believed they concurred in his recommendation. When asked what he relied
on to make his recommendation that the aggressive techniques be approved, the only written
legal opinion Mr. Haynes cited was Lieutenant Colonel Beaver's legal analysis, which senior
military lawyers had considered "legally insufficient" and "woefully inadequate," and which
LTC Beaver herself had expected would be supplemented with a review by persons with greater
experience than her own.
(U) On December 2,2002, Secretary Rumsfeld signed Mr. Haynes's recommendation,
adding a handwritten note that referred to limits proposed in the memo on the use of stress
positions: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
(U) SERE school techniques are designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our
enemies. There are fundamental differences between a SERE school exercise and a real world
interrogation. At SERE school, students are subject to an extensive medical and psychological
pre-screening prior to being subjected to physical and psychological pressures. The schools
impose strict limits on the frequency, duration, and/or intensity of certain techniques.
Psychologists are present throughout SERE training to intervene should the need arise and to
help students cope with associated stress. And SERE school is voluntary; students are even
given a special phrase they can use to immediately stop the techniques from being used against
them.
(U) Neither those differences, nor the serious legal concerns that had been registered,
stopped the Secretary of Defense from approving the use of the aggressive techniques against
detainees. Moreover, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the techniques without apparently
providing any written guidance as to how they should be administered.

UNCLASSIFIED

xix

UNCLASSIFIED
SERE Techniques at GTMO (U)
(U) Following the Secretary's December 2, 2002 authorization, senior staff at GTMO

began drafting a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically for the use of SERE
techniques in interrogations. The draft SOP itself stated that "The premise behind this is that the
interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are appropriate for use in real-world
interrogations. These tactics and techniques are used at SERE school to 'break' SERE detainees.
The same tactics and techniques can be used to break real detainees during interrogation" The
draft "GTMO SERE SOP" described how to slap, strip, and place detainees in stress positions. It
also described other SERE techniques, such as "hooding," "manhandling," and "walling"
detainees.
(U) On December 30,2002, two instructors from the Navy SERE school arrived at
GTMO. The next day, in a session with approximately 24 interrogation personnel, the two
SERE instructors demonstrated how to administer stress positions, and various slapping
techniques. According to two interrogators, those who attended the training even broke off into
pairs to practice the techniques.
(U) ExemplifYing the disturbing nature and substance ofthe training, the SERE
instructors explained "Biderman's Principles" - which were based on coercive methods used by
the Chinese Communist dictatorship to elicit false confessions from U.S. POWs during the
Korean War - and left with GTMO personnel a chart ofthose coercive techniques. Three days
after they conducted the training, the SERE instructors met with GTMO's Commander, Major
General Geoffrey Miller. According to some who attended that meeting, Major General Miller
stated that he did not want his interrogators using the techniques that the Navy SERE instructors
had demonstrated. That conversation, however, took place after the training had already
occurred and not all ofthe interrogators who attended the training got the message.
(U) At about the same time, a dispute over the use of aggressive techniques was raging at

GTMO over the interrogation of Mohammed al-Khatani, a high value detainee. Personnel from
CITF and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigations (FBI) had registered strong opposition, to
interrogation techniques proposed for use on Khatani and made those concerns known to the
DoD General Counsel's office. Despite those objections, an interrogation plan that included
aggressive techniques was approved. The interrogation itself, which actually began on
November 23,2002, a week before the Secretary's December 2,2002 grant of blanket authority
for the use of aggressive techniques, continued through December and into mid-January 2003.
(U) NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that, on several occasions, Deputy Assistant

Attorney General Bruce Swartz raised concerns with him about allegations of detainee abuse at
GTMO. Mr. Bellinger said that, in tum, he raised these concerns "on several occasions with
DoD officials and was told that the allegations were being investigated by the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service." Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that Mr.
Bellinger also advised her "on a regular basis regarding concerns and issues relating to DoD
detention policies and practices at Guantanamo." She said that as a result she convened a "series

UNCLASSIFIED
:1:1:

UNCLASSIFIED
of meetings ofNSC Principals in 2002 and 2003 to discuss various issues and concerns relating
to detainees in the custody ofthe Department of Defense."
(U) Between mid-December 2002 and mid-January 2003, Navy General Counsel Alberto
Mora spoke with the DoD General Counsel three times to express his concerns about
interrogation techniques at GTMO, at one point telling Mr. Haynes that he thought techniques
that had been authorized by the Secretary of Defense "could rise to the level oftorture." On
January 15,2003, having received no word that the Secretary's authority would be withdrawn,
Mr. Mora went so far as to deliver a draft memo to Mr. Haynes's office memorializing his legal
concerns about the techniques. In a subsequent phone call, Mr. Mora told Mr. Haynes he would
sign his memo later that day unless he heard defmitively that the use ofthe techniques was
suspended. In a meeting that same day, Mr. Haynes told Mr. Mora that the Secretary would
rescind the techniques. Secretary Rumsfeld signed a memo rescinding authority for the
techniques on January 15,2003.
(U) That same day, GTMO suspended its use of aggressive techniques on Khatani.
While key documents relating to the interrogation remain classified, published accounts indicate
that military working dogs had been used against Khatani. He had also been deprived of
adequate sleep for weeks on end, stripped naked, subjected to loud music, and made to wear a
leash and perform dog tricks. In a June 3, 2004 press briefing, SOUTHCOM Commander
General James Hill traced the source oftechniques used on Khatani back to SERE, stating: "The
staff at Guantanamo working with behavioral scientists, having gone up to our SERE school and
developed a list of techniques which our lawyers decided and looked at, said were OK." General
Hill said "we began to use a few ofthose techniques ... on this individuaL."
(U) On May 13, 2008, the Pentagon announced in a written statement that the Convening
Authority for military commissions "dismissed without prejudice the sworn charges against
Mohamed al Khatani." The statement does not indicate the role his treatment may have played
in that decision.

DoD Working Group Ignores Military Lawyers and Relies on OLC (D)
(U) On January 15, 2003, the same day he rescinded authority for GTMO to use
aggressive techniques, Secretary Rumsfeld directed the establishment of a "Working Group" to
review interrogation techniques. For the next few months senior military and civilian lawyers
tried, without success, to have their concerns about the legality of aggressive techniques reflected
in the Working Group's report. Their arguments were rejected in favor ofa legal opinion from
the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) John Yoo. Mr. Yoo's opinion, the
final version of which 'was dated March 14,2003, had been requested by Mr. Haynes at the
initiation ofthe Working Group process, and repeated much of what the first Bybee memo had
said six months earlier.
(U) The first Bybee memo, dated August 1, 2002, had concluded that, to violate the
federal torture statute, physical pain that resulted from an act would have to be "equivalent in
intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of

UNCLASSIFIED

xxi

UNCLASSIFIED
bodily function, or even death." Mr. Yoo's March 14, 2003 memo stated that criminal laws,
such as the federal torture statute, would not apply to certain military interrogations, and that
interrogators could not be prosecuted by the Justice Department for using interrogation methods
that would otherwise violate the law.
(U) Though the final Working Group report does not specifically mention SERE, the list
ofinterrogation techniques it evaluated and recommended for approval suggest the influence of
SERE. Removal of clothing, prolonged standing, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation,
hooding, increasing anxiety through the use of a detainee's aversions like dogs, and face and
stomach slaps were all recommended for approval.
(U) On April 16, 2003, less than two weeks after the Working Group completed its
report, the Secretary authorized the use of24 specific interrogation techniques for use at GTMO.
While the authorization included such techniques as dietary manipulation, environmental
manipulation, and sleep adjustment, it was silent on many ofthe techniques in the Working
Group report. Secretary Rumsfeld's memo said, however, that "If, in your view, you require
additional interrogation techniques for a particular detainee, you should provide me, via the
Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, a written request describing the proposed technique,
recommended safeguards, and the rationale for applying it with an identified detainee."
(U) Just a few months later, one such request for "additional interrogation techniques"
arrived on Secretary Rumsfeld's desk. The detainee was Mohamedou QuId Slahi. While
documents relating to the interrogation plan for Slahi remain classified, a May 2008 report from
the Department of Justice Inspector General includes declassified information suggesting the
plan included hooding Slahi and subjecting him to sensory deprivation and "sleep adjustment."
The Inspector General's report says that an FBI agent who saw a draft ofthe interrogation plan
said it was similar to Khatani's interrogation plan. Secretary Rumsfeld approved the Slahi plan
on August 13, 2003.

Aggressive Techniques Authorized in Afghanistan and Iraq (U)
(U) Shortly after Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval ofhis General
Counsel's recommendation to authorize aggressive interrogation techniques, the techniquesand the fact the Secretary had authorized them - became known to interrogators in Mghanistan.
A copy of the Secretary's memo was sent from GTMO to Mghanistan. Captain Carolyn Wood,
the Officer in Charge ofthe Intelligence Section at Bagram Airfield in Mghanistan, said that in
January 2003 she saw a power point presentation listing the aggressive techniques that had been
authorized by the Secretary.
(U) Despite the Secretary's January 15,2003 rescission of authority for GTMO to use
aggressive techniques, his initial approval six weeks earlier continued to influence interrogation
policies.
(U) On January 24, 2003, nine days after Secretary Rumsfe1d rescinded authority for the
techniques at GTMO, the Staff Judge Advocate for Combined Joint Task Force 180 (CJTF-180),

UNCLASSIFIED
xxii

UNCLASSIFIED

u.s. Central Command's (CENTCOM) conventional forces in Afghanistan, produced an
"Interrogation techniques" memo. While that memo remains classified, unclassified portions of
a report by Major General George Fay stated that the memo "recommended removal of clothing
- a technique that had been in the Secretary's December 2 authorization" and discussed
"exploiting the Arab fear of dogs" another technique approved by the Secretary on December 2,
2002.
(U) From Afghanistan, the techniques made their way to Iraq. According to the
Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (lG), at the beginning ofthe Iraq war, special
mission unit forces in Iraq "used a January 2003 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which had
been developed for operations in Afghanistan." According to the DoD IG, the Afghanistan SOP
had been:

[I]nfluenced by the counter-resistance memorandum that the Secretary of Defense
approved on December 2, 2002 and incorporated techniques designed for
detainees who were identified as unlawful combatants. Subsequent battlefield
interrogation SOPs included techniques such as yelling, loud music, and light
control, environmental manipulation, sleep deprivation/adjustment, stress
positions, 20-hour interrogations, and controlled fear (muzzled dogs) ...
(U) Techniques approved by the Secretary of Defense in December 2002 reflect the
influence of SERE. And not only did those techniques make their way into official interrogation
policies in Iraq, but instructors from the JPRA SERE school followed. The DoD IG reported that
in September 2003, at the request ofthe Commander ofthe Special Mission Unit Task Force,
JPRA deployed a team to Iraq to assist interrogation operations. During that trip, which was
explicitly approved by U.S. Joint Forces Command, JPRA's higher headquarters, SERE
instructors were authorized to participate in the interrogation of detainees in U.S. military
custody using SERE techniques.
(U) In September 2008 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Colonel
Steven Kleinman, an Air Force Reservist who was a member ofthe interrogation support team
sent by JPRA to the Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq, described abusive interrogations he
witnessed, and intervened to stop, during that trip. Colonel Kleinman said that one ofthose
interrogations, which took place in a room painted all in black with a spotlight on the detainee,
the interrogator repeatedly slapped a detainee who was kneeling on the floor in front ofthe
interrogator. In another interrogation Colonel Kleinman said the two other members ofthe
JPRA team took a hooded detainee to a bunker at the Task Force facility, forcibly stripped him
naked and left him, shackled by the wrist and ankles, to stand for 12 hours.
(U) Interrogation techniques used by the Special Mission Unit Task Force eventually
made their way into Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued for all U.S. forces in Iraq. In
the summer of2003, Captain Wood, who by that time was the Interrogation Officer in Charge at
Abu Ghraib, obtained a copy ofthe Special Mission Unit interrogation policy and submitted it,
virtually unchanged, to her chain of command as proposed policy.

UNCLASSIFIED
xxiii

UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Captain Wood submitted her proposed policy around the same time that a message
was being conveyed that interrogators should be more aggressive with detainees. In mid-August
2003, an email from staffat Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) headquarters in Iraq
requested that subordinate units provide input for a "wish list" of interrogation techniques, stated
that "the gloves are coming off," and said "we want these detainees broken." At the end of
August 2003, Major General Geoffrey Miller, the GTMO Commander, led a team to Iraq to
assess interrogation and detention operations. Colonel Thomas Pappas, the Commander ofthe
20S th Military Intelligence Brigade, who met with Major General Miller during that visit, said
that the tenor of the discussion was that "we had to get tougher with the detainees." A Chief
Warrant Officer with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said that during Major General Miller's tour
ofthe ISG's facility, Major General Miller said the ISG was "running a country club" for
detainees.
(U) On September 14,2003 the Commander ofCJTF-7, Lieutenant General Ricardo
Sanchez, issued the fIrst CJTF-7 interrogation SOP. That SOP authorized interrogators in Iraq to
use stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs
in interrogations. Lieutenant General Sanchez issued the September 14, 2003 policy with the
knowledge that there were ongoing discussions about the legality of some of the approved
techniques. Responding to legal concerns from CENTCOM lawyers about those techniques,
Lieutenant General Sanchez issued a new policy on October 12,2003, eliminating many ofthe
previously authorized aggressive techniques. The new policy, however, contained ambiguities
with respect to certain techniques, such as the use of dogs in interrogations, and led to confusion
about which techniques were permitted.
(U) In his report of his investigation into Abu Ghraib, Major General George Fay said
that interrogation techniques developed for GTMO became "confused" and were implemented at
Abu Ghraib. For example, Major General Fay said that removal of clothing, while not included
in CJTF-Ts SOP, was "imported" to Abu Ghraib, could be ''traced through Mghanistan and
GTMO," and contributed to an environment at Abu Ghraib that appeared "to condone depravity
and degradation rather than humane treatment of detainees." Major General Fay said that the
policy approved by the Secretary of Defense on December 2,2002 contributed to the use of
aggressive interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib in late 2003.

OLC Withdraws Legal Opinion - JFCOM Issues Guidance on JPRA "Offensive" Support
(U)
(U) As the events at Abu Ghraib were unfolding, Jack Goldsmith, the new Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel was presented with a "short stack" of 0 Le opinions that
were described to him as problematic. Included in that short stack were the Bybee memos of
August 1,2002 and Mr. Yoo's memo of March 2003. After reviewing the memos, Mr.
Goldsmith decided to rescind both the so-called fIrst Bybee memo and Mr. Yoo's memo. In late
December 2003, Mr. Goldsmith notifIed Mr. Haynes that DoD could no longer rely on Mr.
Yoo's memo in determining the lawfulness of interrogation techniques. The change in OLe
guidance, however, did not keep JPRA from making plans to continue their support to
interrogation operations. In fact, it is not clear that the agency was even aware ofthe change.

UNCLASSIFIED
xxiv

UNCLASSIFIED
(U) In 2004, JPRA and CENTCOM took steps to send a JPRA training team to
Afghanistan to assist in detainee interrogations there. In the wake of the public disclosure of
detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, however, that trip was cancelled and JFCOM subsequently issued
policy guidance limiting JPRA's support to interrogations.
(U) On September 29, 2004 Major General James Soligan, JFCOM's Chief of StatI,
issued a memorandum referencing JPRA's support to interrogation operations. Major General
Soligan wrote:

Recent requests from [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the Combatant
Commands have solicited JPRA support based on knowledge and information
gained through the debriefing of former U.S. POWs and detainees and their
application to U.S. Strategic debriefmg and interrogation techniques. These
requests, which can be characterized as 'offensive' support, go beyond the
chartered responsibilities of JPRA... The use of resistance to interrogation
knowledge for 'offensive' purposes lies outside the roles and responsibilities of
JPRA
(U) Lieutenant General Robert Wagner, the Deputy Commander of JFCOM, later called
requests for JPRA interrogation support "inconsistent with the unit's charter" and said that such
requests "might create conditions which tasked JPRA to engage in offensive operational
activities outside of JPRA's defensive mission."
(U) Interrogation policies endorsed by senior military and civilian officials authorizing
the use of harsh interrogation techniques were a major cause of the abuse of detainees in U.S.
custody. The impact ofthose abuses has been significant. In a 2007 international BBC poll,
only 29 percent of people around the world said the United States is a generally positive
influence in the world. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have a lot to do with that perception. The
fact that America is seen in a negative light by so many complicates our ability to attract allies to
our side, strengthens the hand of our enemies, and reduces our ability to collect intelligence that
can save lives.
(U) It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation
techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against
our own soldiers and that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to
elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel. While some argue that the brutality and
disregard for human life shown by al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists justifies us treating them
harshly, General David Petraeus explained why that view is misguided. In a May 2007 letter to
his troops, General Petraeus said "Our values and thelaws governing warfare teach us to respect
human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values
distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must
understand that we - not our enemies - occupy the moral high ground."

UNCLASSIFIED

xxv

UNCLASSIFIED
Senate AImed Services Committee Conclusions
Conclusion 1: On February 7,2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination
that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum
standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, Following the
President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in
SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions,
were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Conclusion 2: Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in
meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were
d~scussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA's interrogation program
during that period.
Conclusions on SERE Training Techniques and Interrogations
Conclusion 3: The use oftechniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training - such
as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their
heads, and treating them like animals - was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of
detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also
inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE
resistance training is to increase the ability of U. S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and
the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the
Korean War to elicit false confessions.
Conclusion 4: The use oftechniques in interrogations derived from SERE resistance training
created a serious risk of physical and psychological harm to detainees. The SERE schools
employ strict controls to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to students during
training. Those controls include medical and psychological screening for students, interventions
by trained psychologists during training, and code words to ensure that students can stop the
application of a technique at any time should the need arise. Those same controls are not present
in real world interrogations.
Conclusions on Senior Official Consideration of SERE Techniques for Interrogations
Conclusion 5: In July 2002, the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense General Counsel solicited
information from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) on SERE techniques for use
during interrogations. That solicitation, prompted by requests from Department of Defense
General Counsel William J. Haynes II, reflected the view that abusive tactics similar to those
used by our enemies should be considered for use against detainees in U.S. custody,'
Conclusion 6: The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) interrogation program included at least
one SERE training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto
UNCLASSIFIED

xxvi

UNCLASSIFIED
Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, were
consulted on the development oflegal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions
subsequently issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted
legal obligations under u.s. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation
techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent ofanti-torture laws,
rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense
determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations
conducted by u.s. military personnel. .
Conclusions on JPRA Offensive Activities
Conclusion 7: Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) efforts in support of"offensive"
interrogation operations went beyond the agency's knowledge and expertise. JPRA's support to
U.S. government interrogation efforts contributed to detainee abuse. JPRA's offensive support
also influenced the development of policies that authorized abusive interrogation techniques for
use against detainees in U.S. custody.
Conclusion 8: Detainee abuse occurred during JPRA's support to Special Mission Unit (SMU)
Task Force (TF) interrogation operations in Iraq in September 2003. JPRA Commander Colonel
Randy Moulton's authorization of SERE instructors, who had no experience in detainee
interrogations, to actively participate in Task Force interrogations using SERE resistance training
techniques was a serious failure in judgment. The Special Mission Unit Task Force
Commander's failure to order that SERE resistance training techniques not be used in detainee
interrogations was a serious failure in leadership that led to the abuse of detainees in Task Force
custody. Iraq is a Geneva Convention theater and techniques used in SERE school are
inconsistent with the obligations of U.S. personnel under the Geneva Conventions.
Conclusion 9: Combatant Command requests for JPRA "offensive" interrogation support and
U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) authorization ofthat support led to JPRA operating
outside the agency's charter and beyond its expertise. Only when JFCOM's Staff Judge
Advocate became aware of and raised concerns about JPRA's support to offensive interrogation
operations in late September 2003 did JFCOM leadership begin to take steps to curtail JPRA's
"offensive" activities. It was not until September 2004, however, that JFCOM issued a formal
policy stating that support to offensive interrogation operations was outside JPRA's charter.
Conclusions on GTMO's Request for Ageressive Techniques
Conclusion 10: Interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay's (GTMO) October 11, 2002
request for authority submitted by Major General Michael Dunlavey, were influenced by JPRA
training for GTMO interrogation personnel and included techniques similar to those used in
SERE training to teach U.S. personnel to resist abusive enemy interrogations. GTMO Staff
Judge Advocate Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver's legal review justifying the October 11, 2002
GTMO request was profoundly in error and legally insufficient. Leaders at GTMO, including
Major General Dunlavey's successor, Major General Geoffrey Miller, ignored warnings from

UNCLASSIFIED

xxvii

UNCLASSIFIED
DoD's Criminal Investigative Task Force and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation that the
techniques were potentially unlawful and that their use would strengthen detainee resistance.

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut
short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal
Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent
conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of
interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with
conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal
Investigative Task Force.
Conclusion 12: Department of Defense General Counsel William 1. Haynes II's effort to cut
short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by thenCaptain Jane Dahon, Legal Counsel to the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, was
inappropriate and undermined the military's review process. The General Counsel's subsequent
review was grossly deficient. Mr. Haynes's one page recommendation to Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld failed to address the serious legal concerns that had been previously raised by
the military services about techniques in the GTMO request. Further, Mr. Haynes's reliance on a
legal memo produced by GTMO's Staff Judge Advocate that senior military lawyers called
"legally insufficient" and "woefully inadequate" is deeply troubling.
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive
interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.
Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of
the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and
contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and
stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Conclusion 14: Department of Defense General Counsel William 1. Haynes II's direction to the
Department of Defense's Detainee Working Group in early 2003 to consider a legal memo from
John Yoo ofthe Department of Justice's OLC as authoritative, blocked the Working Group from
conducting a fair and complete legal analysis and resulted in a report that, in the words ofthenDepartment ofthe Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora contained "profound mistakes in its
legal analysis." Reliance on the OLC memo resulted in a final Working Group report that
recommended approval of several aggressive techniques, including removal of clothing, sleep
deprivation, and slapping, similar to those used in SERE training to teach U. S. personnel to resist
abusive interrogations.
Conclusions on Interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan
Conclusion 15: Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were
influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2,2002 approval of aggressive interrogation
teclmiques for use at GTMO. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of
aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF

UNCLASSIFIED
xxviii

UNCLASSIFIED
policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu
Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
Conclusion 16: During his assessment visit to Iraq in August and September 2003, GTMO
Commander Major General Geoffrey Miller encouraged a view that interrogators should be more
aggressive during detainee interrogations.
Conclusion 17: Interrogation policies approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, which
included the use of military working dogs and stress positions, were a direct cause of detainee
abuse in Iraq. Lieutenant General Sanchez's decision to issue his September 14,2003 policy
with the knowledge that there were ongoing discussions as to the legality of some techniques in
it was a serious error in judgment The September policy was superseded on October 12,2003
as a result oflegal concerns raised by U.S. Central Command. That superseding policy,
however, contained ambiguities and contributed to confusion about whether aggressive
techniques, such as military working dogs, were authorized for use during interrogations.
Conclusion 18: U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) failed to conduct proper oversight of
Special Mission Unit Task Force interrogation policies. Though aggressive interrogation
techniques were removed from Combined Joint Task Force 7 interrogation policies after
CENTCOM raised legal concerns about their inclusion in the September 14, 2003 policy issued
by Lieutenant General Sanchez, SMU TF interrogation policies authorized some ofthose same
techniques, including stress positions and military working dogs.
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a
few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees oftheir
clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them
appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 authorization of aggressive
interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior
military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were
appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in
standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

UNCLASSIFIED
xxix

Early Influences on Interrogation Polley (U)
A.

RedefUJing the Legal Framework For the Treatment ofDetainees (U)

(U) From the time oftheir ratification until the invasion of Mghanistan in 2001, the
United States government had accepted the terms ofthe Geneva Conventions and the U.S.
military had trained its personnel to apply the Conventions during wartime. Soon after the
launch of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), however, Administration lawyers constructed a
new legal framework that abandoned the traditional U.S. application ofthe Geneva
Conventions. 1
(U) On January 9, 2002 attorneys at the Department of Justice wrote a memorandum to
Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel William "Jim" Haynes II, advising him that the
Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda or the Taliban in
Mghanistan. 2 The attorneys wrote the memo with the understanding that the Defense
Department had established a long-term detention site at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba (GTMO) for al Qaeda and Taliban members captured by U.S. military forces or transferred
from U.S. allies in Mghanistan. 3
(U) On January 18,2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the President
ofthe Department of Justice (Dol) opinion. 4 After being briefed by Judge Gonzales, the
President concluded that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al
Qaeda or to members of the Taliban, and that they would not receive the protections afforded to
Prisoners Of War (POWS).5

According to Jack Goldsmith, Special Counsel in the Department of Defense (2002-2003) and Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel (2003-2004): "never in the history of the United States had lawyers had such
extraordinary influence over war policies as they did after 9/11. The lawyers weren't necessarily expert on al
Qaeda, or Islamic fundamentalism, or intelligence, or international diplomacy, or even the requirements of national
security. But the lawyers---especially White House and Justice Department lawyers-seemed to 'own' issues that
had profound national security and political and diplomatic consequences." These Administration lawyers
"dominated discussions on detention, military commissions, interrogation, GlMO, and many other controversial
terrorism policies." Jack Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration
(New York: W.w. Norton & Company 2(07) at 130-31 (hereinafter "Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency").
1

2 Memo

from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Y 00 and Special COl.D'1sel Robert Delahunty of Defense
General Counsel William 1. Haynes IL Application ofTreaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
(January 9, 2002).
Ibid.; Department of Defense News Brieftng (December 27,2(01), available at
http://www.defnselink.mil/TranscriptsfTranscript.aspx?TranscriptID=2696 (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
announced plans to hold detainees at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in a news conference).

M~mo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President George W. Bush, Decision Re Application Of
The Geneva Convention on Prisoners OfWar To The Corfflict With Al Qaeda And The TaIwan (January 25, 2(02).

, In a memo to the President, White House Counsel Gonzales noted "I understand that you decided that the [Third
Geneva Convention] does not apply [to the conflicts with al Qaeda or the Taliban] and, "accordingly, that al Qaeda
and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war" under the [Third Geneva Convention]. See Memo from White
House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President George W. Bush, Decision Re Application OfThe Geneva Convention
on Prisoners OfWar To The Conflict WithAl QaedaAnd The Taliban (January 25,2002).

(U) On January 19,2002, Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld instructed the
Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, to inform all Combatant
Commanders that al Qaeda and Taliban members are "not entitled to prisoner of war status"
under the Geneva Conventions. 6 Secretary Rumsfeld added that combatant commanders should
"treat [detainees] humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity,
in a manner consistent with the principles ofthe Geneva Conventions of 1949." 7 Secretary
Rumsfeld also instructed that his order be transmitted to the subordinate command at
Guantanamo Bay for implementation. On January 21,2002 the Chairman informed the
combatant commanders ofthe new policy. 8
(U) During the next few weeks - after Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the
President to reconsider his decision - Administration attorneys debated the rationale for denying
legal protections under the Geneva Conventions to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. 9 On
January 25,2002, Judge Gonzales argued in a memorandum to the President that the war on
terror had "render[ed] obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and
render[ed] quaint some of its provisions ..." He recommended that the President stand by his
order to set aside the Geneva Conventions. 10
(U) On Febmary 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third
Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban
detainees (designated as ''Unlawful combatants" in the memorandum) were not entitled to POW
status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. II While the President
also found that Common Article 3 (requiring humane treatment) did not apply to either al Qaeda
or Taliban detainees, his order stated that as "a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces

Memo from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard
Myers Status.ofTaliban and Al Qaeda (January 19,2002).

Ibid.

Cable from the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers to US. MilitaIy Unified Commands and
Services (January 21,2002).

Memo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President George W. Bush. Decision Re Application Of
The Geneva Convention on Prisoners OfWar To The Cmf/ict WithAl Qaeda And The Taiwan (January 25,2002).

Judge Gonzales dismissed as "unpersuasive" legal and policy arguments that such an order would reverse
longstanding US. policy and practice~ undermine the protections afforded to US. or coalition forces captured in
Afghanis~ limit prosecution of enemy forces under the War Crimes Act (which only applies if the Geneva
Conventions apply); provoke widespread international condemnation, even if the U.S. complies with the core
humanitarian principles of the treaty as a matter of policy, may encourage other countries to look for ''technical
loopholes" to avoid being bound by the Geneva Conventions; may discourage allies from turning over terrorists to
the U.S. or providing legal assistance to the U.S.; may undermine US. military culture which emphasizes
maintaining the highest standard of conduct in combat; and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of
adversaries. According to Gonzales, the "positive" consequences of setting aside the Third Geneva Convention
included "preserving flexibility" in the war and "substantially reduc[ing] the threat of domestic criminal prosecution
under the War Crimes Act." Memorandum from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President George W.
Bush, Decision Re Application OfThe Geneva Convention on Prisoners OfWar To The Conflict With Al Qaeda And
The Taliban (January 25,2002).
10

11 Memo from President George W. Bush. Humane Treatment ofal Qaeda and Taliban Detainees (February 7.
2002).

shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with
military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles ofthe Geneva Conventions." 12

(U) The President's policy statement was directed at the United States Armed Forces.
The Committee is unaware ofa similar Presidential policy statement governing other agencies'
treatment of detainees. A February 2, 2002 State Department memo reflected that
Administration lawyers involved in the discussion about the application ofthe Third Geneva
Convention to the Taliban and al Qaeda had "all agree[d] that the CIA is bound by the same legal
restrictions as the U.S. military.,,13 The memo also stated, however, that "CIA lawyers
believe[d] that, to the extent that the [Third Geneva Convention's] protections do not apply as a
matter of law but those protections are applied as a matter of policl' it is desirable to
circumscribe that policy so as to limit its application to the CIA"I According to the memo,
"other Administration lawyers involved did not disagree with or object to the CIA's view."IS
Months later, in an October 2, 2002 meeting with DoD officials at Guantanamo Bay, Chief
Counsel to the CIA's CounterTerrorist Center (CTC) Jonathan Fredman reportedly stated that the
"CIA rallied" for the Conventions not to apply.I6
(U) Several military officers, including members ofthe Judge Advocate General (JAG)
Corps, have described difficulties in interpreting and implementing the President's February 7,
2002 order. A former Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM)
stated that he thought the President's order was a tough standard for the Department of Defense
(DoD) to apply in the field because it replaced a well-established military doctrine (legal
compliance with the Geneva Conventions) with a policy that was subject to interpretation. I7 The
President's order was not, apparently, followed by any guidance that defined the terms
"humanely" or "military necessity." As a result, those in the field were left to interpret the
President's order.
.

Department ofDefense OffICe ofGeneral Counsel Seeks Information from the
Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) (U)

(U) As Administration lawyers began to reconsider U.S. adherence to the Geneva
Conventions, the DoD Office of the General Counsel also began seeking information on
detention and interrogation. In December 2001, the DoD General Counsel's office contacted the

12 Memo from President George W. Bush, Humane Treatment ofal Qaeda and TaMan Detainees (February 7,
2002).

13The State Department memo reflected the views of lawyers from the Department of Justice, Department of
Defense, Department of State, White House Counsel's office, Office of the Vice President, Joint Chiefs of StafT, and
the Central Intelligence Agency. Memorandum from State Department Legal Adviser William Taft, IV to White
House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Comments on Your Paper on the Geneva Convention (February 2,2002).
14 Ibid.
H

Ibid.

16 Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes (undated) at 4, attached to email from Blaine Thomas to Sam
McCahon, _
and Mark Fallon (October 24, 2002) (hereinafter "Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting
Minutes')

17 Committee staff interview of Daniel Donovan (November 28, 2007).

Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for
infonnation about detainee "exploitation.,,18
.
(U) JPRA is an agency of the Department of Defense under the command authority ofthe
U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). Part of JPRA's mission is to oversee military Survival
Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) training. 19 In the "resistance" phase of SERE training,
students are subject to physical and psychological pressures (SERE techniques) designed to
simulate conditions to which they might be subject if captured by an enemy that did not abide by
the Geneva Conventions. Exposing U.S. military personnel to these physical and psychological
pressures in a highly controlled environment equips them with the skills needed to increase
resistance to hostile interrogations. Among the physical and psychological pressures used at
SERE schools are stress positions, sleep deprivation, face and abdomen slaps, isolation,
degradation (such as treating the student like an animal), and "walling." Until November 2007,
waterboarding was also an approved training technique in the U.S. Navy SERE school. 20
_ _ The SERE schools employ a number of strict controls to limit the physical
or psychological impact ofthese techniques on their students. 21 For example, there are limits on
the frequency, duration, and/or intensity of certain techniques. Instructors are also required to
consider the extensive medical and/or psychological screening records of each student before
22
administering any technique. Students are even given a phrase they can use to make the
2
instructor immediately cease application of all pressures.

Heanng to ReceIve In ormatlon Re aung To e Treatment 0 Detamees, Senate CommIttee
on Armed Services, 110lb Congo (August 3,2007) (Testimony of Terrence Russell) at 32 (hereinafter "Testimony of
Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007)"); Fax cover sheet from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Richard Shiffrin
(December 17, 2001).
19 Oversight of SERE training is only part of JPRA's mission. JPRA is responsible for coordinating joint personnel
recovery capabilities. Personnel recovery is the term used to describe efforts to obtain the release or recovery of
captured, missing, or isolated personnel from uncertain or hostile environments and denied areas.
20 Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American
Prisoners and Detainees (undated), attached to Memo from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of
Defense General Counsel (July 26, 2002) (hereinafter "Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against
American Prisoners and Detainees'').

21 Responses of Jerald Ogrisseg to Questions for the Record (July 28,2008); Testimony of Terrence Russell (August
3,2007) at 123.

Responses of Jerald Ogrisseg to Questions for the Record (July 28, 2008) ("Military SERE training students are
screened multiple times prior to participating in training to ensure that they are physical and psychologically healthy.
They get screened prior to entering the service to ensure that they don't have certain disorders. Students are
required to get screened by military doctors at their home bases prior to traveling for SERE training to ensure that
they meet the physical and psychological standards for participating in training. Most SERE schools also mandate
that students complete screening questionnaires after they arrive at SERE school as a ftnal safety check and for
additional help or interventions if needed, to include being restricted from experiencing particular training
procedures. Furthermore, the students arrive with their medical records in hand or available electronically to
document their entire medical history, and indications of prior psychological diagnoses since their original militaryentry physicals. These procedures are used not only to screen people out of participating in training, but also for
22

(U) SERE instructors are themselves psychologically prescreened prior to hiring, and
must submit to a nearly year-long training process, annual psychological screening, and
extensive monitoring and oversight during practical exercises. These requirements are designed
to prevent instructor behavioral drift, which ifleft unmonitored, could lead to abuse of
students. 24
(U) JPRA's expertise lies in training U.S. military personnel who are at risk for capture,
how to respond and resist interrogations (a defensive mission), not in how to conduct
interrogations (an offensive mission). 25 The difference between the two missions is of critical
importance. SERE instructors play the part of interrogators, but they are not typically trained
interrogators. SERE instructors are not selected for their roles based on language skills,
intelligence training, or expertise in eliciting infonnation. 26
_ _ The risk of using SERE physical pressures in an interrogation context,
instead of in the highly controlled SERE school environment, was highlighted by the senior
Army SERE psychologist LTC Morgan Banks in an email to personnel at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. He stated:
Because of the danger involved, very few SERE instructors are allowed to
actually use physical pressures. It is extremely easy for U.S. Army instructors,
training U. S. Army soldiers, to get out of hand, and to injure students. The
training, from the point ofthe student, appears to be chaotic and out of control. In
reality, everything that is occurring [in SERE school] is very carefully monitored
and paced; no one is acting on their own during training. Even with all these

identifying people who could be provided preventative interventions in order to increase their probab[ility] of
success in training.'')
23 The Origins of Aggressive Interrogation Techniques: Part I of the Committee's Inquiry Into the Treatment of
Detainees in u.s. Custody, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 110lh Congo (June 17, 2008) (hereinafter "SASC
Hearing (June 17,2008)"); FASO Detachment Brunswick Instruction 3305.C (January 1, 1998).

According to Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, the former Chief of Psychology Services at the Air Force SERE school and
current JPRA Chief Human Factors, instructors are constantly monitored by other JPRA personnel, command staff,
and SERE psychologists to minimize the potential for students to be injured. These oversight mechanisms are
designed to ensure that SERE instructors are complying with operating instructions and to check for signs that
instructors do not suffer from moral disengagement (e.g., by becoming too absorbed in their roles as interrogators
and starting to view u.s. military SERE students as prisoners or detainees). These oversight mechanisms are also
designed to watch students for "indications that they are not coping well with training tasks, provide corrective
interventions with them before they become overwhelmed, and if need be, re-motivate students who have become
overwhelmed to enable them to succeed." Responses of Jerald Ogrisseg to Questions for the Record (July 28,
2008); Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007).
24

Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, Review ofDoD-Directed Investigations ofDetainee

Abuse (U) (August 25, 2006) at 24 (hereinafter "DoD IG Report'').
:l6 A trained interrogator is expected to be familiar with the social, political and economic institutions and have an
understanding of the geography, history and language of "target" countries. Additionally, the more proficient an
interrogator is with languages the "better he will be able to develop rapport with his source" and "follow up on
source leads to additional information." Army Field Manual (FM) 34-52, 1-14.

safeguards, injuries and accidents do happen. The risk with real detainees is
increased exponentially. 27
(U) Despite the differences between the simulated interrogations at SERE school and real
world interrogations of detainees, in December 2001, the DoD General Counsel's office sought
JPRA's advice on the "exploitation" of detainees. The Committee is not aware of JPRA
activities in support ofany offensive interrogation mission prior to that request from the General
Counsel's office. In response to the request, JPRA Chief of Staff Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner
sent Deputy General Counsel for Intelligence Richard Shiffiin a memorandum on the
"exploitation process" and a cover note offering further JPRA assistance on "exploitation and
how to resist it.,,28

_
The memorandum outlined JPRA's view on "obtaining useful intelligence
information from enemy prisoners of war" (EPWs).29
( U ) _ The memo provided the JPRA perspective on how their SERE school staff
would handle the "initial capture," "movement," and "detention" of prisoners. 30 It also provided
advice on interrogation and recommended various approaches, including the use ofundefined
"deprivations. ,,31

_ _ The memo cautioned, however, that while "[p]hysical deprivations can and
do work in ahering the prisoners' mental state to the point where they will say things they
normally would not say," use of physical deprivations has "several major downfalls.,,32 JPRA
warned that physical deprivations were "not as effective" a means of getting information as
psychological pressures, that information gained from their use was "less reliable," and that their
use "tends to increase resistance postures when deprivations are removed.',33 JPRA also warned
that the use of physical deprivations has an "intolerable public and political backlash when
discovered. ,,34

JPRA Collaboration with Other Government Agencies (OGAs) (U)

2002, a retired Air Force SERE
psychologist, Dr. James Mitchell,
asked his former
colleague, the senior SERE psychologist at JPRA, Dr. John "Bruce" Jessen, to review documents

Email from LTC Morgan Banks to MN Paul Burney an~October 2, 2002).

Fax cover sheet from LTC Daniel Baumgartner to Richard Shiffrin (December 17, 2001).

Exploitation Process at 1, attached to fax from LTC Daniel Baumgartner to Richard Shiffrin (December 17,

2001).

Ibid. at 3-4.

Ibid. at 4.

Ibid.

describin al

aeda resistance trainin

The two psychologists reviewed the materials,_
and generated a paper on al Qaeda resistance capabilities
and countermeasures to defeat that resistance.
.35

_On

February 12,2002, Dr. Jessen sent the paper to JPRA Commander Colonel
John "Randy" Moulton, who in tum, emailed the paper to his chain of command at JFCOM with
a recommendation that it be forwarded to the Joint Stafffor dissemination. 36 In his email, Col
Moulton wrote:
While JPRA is not in the business of strategic debriefmg (interrogation), we do
apply the most sophisticated techniques available in order to better prepare our
[personnel] for resistance. After over 30 years of training we have become quite
proficient with both specialized resistance and the ways to defeat it. 37
_ _ Col Moulton also recommended in his email that a JPRA team travel to
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to "provide instruction on basic and advanced techniques and methods"
that JPRA had found effective in countering resistance in students at SERE courses. 38 Col
Moulton suggested that JPRA create a "short course" to teach relevant U. S. personnel about
"interrogation from the resistance side" notin that JPRA had alread received an informal
request to conduct training for the
whose fersonnel were
supporting interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay and in Mghanistan. 3 The JPRA
Commander described the potential collaboration between JPRA a n . a s a "win-win
opportunity.,,40
_ _ In a subsequent email to Brigadier General (BG) Galen Jackman, the
Operations Chief at United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), Brigadier General (Brig
Gen) Thomas Moore, JFCOM's Director for Operations and Plans (13), stated that JPRA was
"prepared to support [SOUTHCOM] in any potential collaboration," but that they would not
assist without an official request from SOUTHCOM or GTMO. 41
_
The JPR~ paper and Col Moulton's recommendations were further
circulated by email from JFCOM to officers at the Joint Staff and to several Combatant
Commands, including those with responsibility for Mghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.42
3~ Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July 11, 2007); Email from Col John R. (Randy) Moulton to MAl
Jack Holbein, BGen Thomas Moore, CAPT Darryl Fengya, and
(February 14,2002).
36

Email from Bruce Jessen to Col Randy Moulton (February 12, 2002).

Email from Col Randy Moulton to MAl Jack Holbein, BGen Thomas Moore, CAPT Darryl Fengya,_
(February 14, 2002).

Ibid.

Ibid.; Memo from Col Mary Moffitt (via BG Ronald Burgess) to BGen Thomas Moore (undated) at 1.

Email from Col Randy Moulton to MAl Jack Holbein, BGen Thomas Moore, CAPT Darryl Fengya,_
(February 14, 2002).

Email from BGen Thomas Moore to BG Galen Jackman et al. (February 14, 2002).

Email from LTC Michael McMahon to Lt Col Steven Ruehl, COL Jim Sikes, COL Daniel Bolger, Steve Wetzel,
CAPT Bill Pokorny, COL Cos Spofford, COL Edward Short, Col Kevin Kelley (February 14, 2002).

JPRA Support to the Defense Intelli.gence Agency (DIA) (U)

------.m..rebruary 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA)
_
sent an official request for support to JFCOM's 13, Brig Oen Moore. 43

_ _ In response to the request, two JPRA personnel- senior SERE
ps chologist Bruce Jessen and JPRA instructor Joseph Witsch
The two week class was described as an "ad hoc 'crash' course on
interrogation" for the "next crew (rotation) going to SO HCOM.,,46 The JPRA team also
participated in a s arate video teleconference with
leadership and OTMO interrogation
staffwhere issues
were discussed. 47 Dr. Jessen said
about how JPRA could assist. 48
that he and Mr. Witsch went to make a "pitch" to

~ Witsch stated that he worked with Dr. Jessen to develop a set of briefing
slides ~training.49 The Department of Defense provided the Committee with slide
presentations that appeared to have been produced b JPRA for the March 8 2002 trainin . Mr.
Witsch testified that two slide presentations (l)
Based on Recently Obtained Al Qaeda Documents" and (2) "Exploitation" appeared to be the same as those used by JPRA in the March 8, 2002 trainin~essen told
the Committee that he did not recognize the slides as those that he presented _ _ but that the
vast majority of the slides were consistent with what he would have taught at the training
session. 51
_
The "Al Qaeda Resistance Contingency Training" presentation described methods
used by al Qaeda to resist interrogation and exploitation and
43

Memo from Col Mary Moffitt (via BG Ronald Burgess) to BGen Thomas Moore (undated).

Ibid.

Email from Bruce Jessen to Col Randy Moulton (March 12, 2002); see also SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008)
(Testimony of Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner) ("DIA accepte~ [JPRA's] help ... with their deploying groups" and
JPRA instruction "centered on resistance techniques, questioning techniques, and general information on how
exploitation works.")

Email from Jim Perna to Christopher Wirts, Bruce Jessen, and Joseph Witsch (February 20,2002).

Email from Bruce Jessen to Col Randy Moulton (March 12, 2002).

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2007).

Hearing to Receive Information Relating To The Treatment of Detainees, Senate Committee on Armed Services,
110th Congo (September 4,2007) (Testimony of Joseph Witsch) at 20 (hereinafter "Testimony of Joseph Witsch
(September 4, 2007)'').

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 20.

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2007).

The resentation also described countermeasures to defeat al Qaeda resistance, includin

Mr. Witsch testified to the Committee
that the countermeasures identified in the slides were "just an interpretation of what we were
doing at the time and what we constantly did when we trained SERE students.,,54
The presentation on detainee "exploitation" described phases of exploitation
and included instruction on initial capture and handling, conducting interrogations, and longterm exploitation. 5s The exploitation presentation also included slides on "isolation and
degradation," "sensory deprivation," "physiological pressures," and "psychological pressures.,,56
At SERE school, each ofthese terms has special meaning.

11_T h e . instructor guide describes "isolation" as "a main building block
ofthe exploitation process" and says that it "allows the captor total control over personal inputs
to the captive.,,57 With respect to degradation, the guide contains examples of the methods used
by SERE instructors to take away the "personal dignity" of students at SERE schoo1. 58
•

Mr. Witsch, the JPRA instructor who led the March 8, 2002 training, told the Committee that
stripping could also be considered a degradation tactic. 60
. ~tsch could not recall what the JPRA team discussed as part of the instruction
to _
relating to degradation. 61

5z_JointPersonnel Recovery Agency, Al QaedaResistance Contingency Training: Contingency Trainingfor

~onnelBased on Recently Obtained Al Qaeda Documents (undated).
53 Ibid.
54 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at 46.
55 Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Exploitation (undated).

~15 _
Another slide describing captor motives states: establish absolute control, induce dependence to meet
needs, elicit compliance, shape cooperation. Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Exploitation (undated). In other
JPRA materials, techniques designed to achieve these goals include isolation or solitary confmement, induced
physical weakness and exhaustion, degradation, conditioning, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, disruption of
sleep and biorhythms, and manipulation of diet. Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against
American Prisoners and Detainees.
" Level C Peacetime Governmental Detention Survival JPRA Instructor Guide, Exploitation: Threats and
Pressures, Module 6.0, Lesson 6.1, para 5.3.1 (Version GO1. 1).
~8 Ibid. at para 5.3.3.
~9

Ibid.

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 22.

Ibid.

11_ JPRA materials also describe "sensory deprivation" and its place in the

exploitation process. 62 In testimony to the Committee, Mr. Witsch described hooding (placing a
hood over the head of a student) and white noise (such as radio static) as sensory deprivation
methods used on students in SERE school. 63 In materials provided to Department of Defense
lawyers in July 2002, JPRA explained that "[w]hen a subject is deprived of sensory input for an
[un]interrupted period, for approximately 6-8 hours, it is not uncommon for them to experience
visual, auditory and!or tactile hallucinations. If deprived of input, the brain will make it up." 64

Mr. Witsch could not recall the discussion of "sensory deprivation" at

training. 6

the.

(U) When used in the context of simulated interrogations conducted at SERE school,
JPRA uses the term "physiological pressures" synonymously with approved physical pressures. 66

11II

Mr. Witsch could not recall what the discussion of "physiological and psychological
pressures" at
7 He said that he provided" personnel with a ''vision of how
we (JPRA) prepare, train, and equip our personnel" in SERE school. 68 Mr. Witsch could not
recall if physical pressures were discussed at the training. 69 Dr. Jessen, the senior SERE
psychologist who also provided instruction t o . personnel, said that physical pressures were
not discussed at the March 8, 2002 training. 70

to_

_ _ Following the training, Dr. Jessen sent an email to JPRA Commander
Col Randy Moulton stating that the JPRA team "provided instruction
personnel on
the content of US Level "c" Resistance to Interrogation training and how this knowledge can be
used to exploit al Qaeda detainees.,,71 Level "c" training includes the physical and
psychological pressures used at SERE school. Dr. Jessen also stated, however, that the JPRA
team provided suggestions on "how to exploit al Qaeda detainees for intelligence within the
confines of the Geneva Conventions."n Dr. Jessen told the Committee, however, that he would

Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees.

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at 23-24.

Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees; See Section II

D, infra.

6' Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at 22.
66

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July 11,2002).

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007).

Ibid. at 44.

Ibid. at 25.

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July 11,2002).

Email from Bruce Jessen to Col Randy Moulton (March 12, 2002).

Ibid.

not have known at the time if isolation, degradation, sensory deprivation, or other topics
referenced in the slides would have been within the confmes ofthe Geneva Conventions. 73
_
Days later, Dr. Jessen sent Col Moulton another email with his thoughts about
additional training for interrogators. Dr. Jessen explained that for future training, one day would
be sufficient to "cover the basics of DOD Level 'C' Resistance training and the special
contingency information" that they addressed_ However, he said that if he added "roleplay" to the curriculum, he would need at least four days. 74

Dr. Jessen stated: "My impression is

requires a more 'exploitation oriented' approach than the students received. [JPRA's Personnel
Recovery Academy (PRA)] instructors do this better than anyone. If JPRA provided role play it
would be manpower intensive, require more time and space (rooms) and video monitor
equipment (which PRA has).,,7s Dr. Jessen recommended that he come up with a course
curriculum with input from others, if JPRA planned to "go[] this direction.,,76

JPRA Recommendationsfor GTMO (U)

trainin was not the fIrst time JPRA provided advice to GTMO
personnel. Just before
training, JPRA prepared a memo on "Prisoner Handling
Recommendations" at GTMO for Col Cooney, the Executive Officer for the Directorate of
Operations (J3) at SOUTHCOM. 77 The memo had been drafted by Dr. Jessen, the senior SERE
psychologist, and Christopher Wirts, the Chief of JPRA's Operational Support Office (OSO).78
The memo noted that its recommendations were based on a "limited understanding ofthe
procedures and conditions that exist[ed]" at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. 79
_ _ The JPRA memo contained specifIc recommendations for GTMO,
including that GTMO "enforce the strictest 'base line' prison behavior policy possible within
[Rules of Engagement]" b im osin and enforcin unishment conse uences more restrictive
than base line rules and
80 JPRA also recommended that GTMO tailor punishment to maximize
cultural undesirability and tailor rewards to maximize cultural desirability.
Dr. Jessen told the Committee that, at the time, he did not know that the scope of the Geneva Conventions
protections were different for Prisoners of War than they were for al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Committee staff
interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13,2(07).

Email from Bruce Jessen to Col Randy Moulton et a1. (March 18, 2002).

Ibid.

77Memo forCol Cooney, Prisoner Handling Recommendations (February 28,2002), attached to email from Bruce
Jessen to Joseph Witsch (March 13,2002).
78 Email from Bruce Jessen to Joseph Witsch (March 13,2(02). Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen
(November 13,2007).
79

Memo for Col Cooney, Prisoner Handling Recommendations (February 28, 2002).

~emo for Col Cooney, Prisoner Handling Recommendations (February 28,2002), attached to email from Bruce
Jessen to Joseph Witsch (March 13,2002).

Colonel Herrington's Assessment ofGTMO (U)

(U) At the time ofthe JPRA memo, GTMO was seeking assistance from other quarters as

well. In March 2002, Commander of Joint Task Force 170 (ITF-170) Major General (MG)
Michael Dunlavey invited Colonel Stuart A. Herrington (Ret.), an experienced Army intelligence
officer, to Guantanamo Bay to conduct an assessment of operations at the facility. 81 Following
his three day assessment visit, COL Herrington submitted a formal written report on March 22,
2002 to MG Dunlavey as well as to the Command at SOUTHCOM and the Army Deputy Chief
of Staff for Intelligence. 82
(U) At the time of COL Herrington's visit, the mission at Guantanamo was under the

control oftwo different task forces, each commanded by a different Major General: ITF-170 for
intelligence exploitation and ITF·160 for detention and security operations. s3 COL Herrington
noted in his assessment that there was ''unanimity among all military and interagency
participants in TF-170 that the security mission is sometimes the tail wagging the intelligence
dog" and stated:
To effectively carry out its intelligence exploitation mission, TF 170 and its
interagency collaborators need to be in full control of the detainees' environment.
Treatment, rewards, punishment, and anything else associated with a detainee
should be centrally orchestrated by the debriefing team responsible for obtaining
information from that detainee. 84
(U) COL Herrington also expressed concern that actions (positive or negative) which
guards might take as routine, such as singling a detainee out for a shakedown or providing an
extra chaplain's visit, might impact the ability of interrogators and debriefers from setting the
tone ofthe questioning sessions. 85
(U) COL Herrington found that facilities and procedures at GTMO for handling detainees

posed serious problems. He said that design flaws at GTMO's current and planned detention
sites hampered intelligence collection, noting that the ·'open" facilities, for example, facilitated
communications among the detainees and discouraged detainee cooperation by permitting
detainees to support each other's resistance efforts. 86

COL Herrington had acquired experience in interrogation and debriefIng during more than thirty years of military
service. Memo from COL Stuart Herrington to MG Michael Dunlavey, Report ofVisit and Recommendations
(March 22, 2002) at 8.

See COL Herrington, Report ofVisit and Recommendations; COL Herrington also provided an additional list of
"suggestions" for MG Dunlavey and his 12, LIC Ron Buikema. See Memo from COL Stuart Herrington to MG
Michael Dunlavey, Suggestions (March 25, 2002)

was established at Guantanamo Bay in the mid-l 990s to support relief and migrant processing centers for
Haitian and Cuban migrants.

83 ITF-160

COL Herrington, Report of Visit and Recommendations at 1-2.

Ibid. at 2.

Ibid. at 3.

(U) COL Herrington also warned that certain security procedures in place at the time
could have a negative impact on intelligence collection, stating:
The austere nature ofthe facilities and the rigorous security movement procedures
(shackles, two MPs with hands on the detainee, etc.) reinforces to detainees that
they are in prison, and detracts from the flexibility that debriefers require to
accomplish their mission... These views have nothing to do with being "soft" on
the detainees. Nor do they challenge the pure security gains from such tight
control. The principal at work is that optimal exploitation of a detainee cannot be
done from a cell ... 87
(U) Specifically, COL Herrington recommended that MPs not be in the room during
interrogations and warned that, while shackling a detainee might make sense from a security
standpoint, it could be counterproductive to intelligence collection:
Shackling one of the detainee's feet to the floor during interrogation might make
sense from a security perspective (although, with one or two MPs present, it is
arguable overkill). However, such shackling is either a) humiliating, or b) sends a
message to the detainee that the debriefer is afraid of him, or c) reminds him of
his plight as a prisoner. 88
(U) COL Herrington observed that most of the interrogators at GTMO lacked the
requisite training in strategic elicitation or the experience required to be effective with the
detainees. 89 He said that, ofthe 26 interrogators present at the time, only one had enough Arabic
language experience to interrogate without an interpreter. 9o

II A memo written by Colonel Mike Fox (SOUTHCOM's Director ofIntelligence
Operations) just a month after COL Herrin on's r
inhibited successful interrogations.

ort, also discussed how conditions at GTMO

Ibid. at 4.

COL Herrington also identified additional deficiencies in intelligence collection, which he said could be improved
by arming GTMO with the ability to translate and review relevant documents onsite and monitor interrogations
using video technology. Ibid.

Ibid. at 6.

COL Herrington's report also criticized the screening criteria in place, which may have resulted in detainees with
less intelligence value being sent to GTMO and those with more valuable detainees being set free. COL Herrington,
Report o/Visit and Recommendations at 6.
90

COL Mike Fox, JTF-170 Methods and Techniques Info Paper (April 22, 2002).

JPRA Prepares Draft Exploitation Plan (U)

(U) As experienced intelligence officers were making recommendations to improve
intelligence collection, JPRA officials with no training or experience in intelligence collection
were working on their own exploitation plan. In April 2002, senior SERE psychologist Bruce
Jessen drafted an exploitation plan and circulated that plan to Commander of the JPRA, Col
Randy Moulton, and the senior civilian leadership of the organization. 94

_ T h e exploitation plan drafted by the senior SERE psychologist contained
recommendations for JPRA involvement in the detainee exploitation process at an undisclosed
facility.

'exploitation of select al Qaeda detainees."

_ _ The first option was for JPRA to field, deploy, direct, and sustain an
entire interrogation team. 98 The plan recommended that JPRA not pursue this course stating,
"No - Too much ofa manpower drain and we [JPRA] are not prepared to provide this kind of
support infrastructure.,,99 A second option was for JPRA to field a "lead captivity/ exploitation
expert (JPRA Senior SERE Psychologist) to advise and support" the exploitation process and to
92

Ibid.

Email from Dr. Bruce Jessen to Christopher Wirts, Mike Dozier and Randy Moulton (April 16, 2002).

Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Exploitation Draft Plan (undated), attached to email from Bruce Jessen to Col
Randy Moulton, Christopher Wirts, and Mike Dozier (April 16, 2002) (hereinafter "JPRA, Exploitation Draft
Plan'").
96

Ibid

Ibid.

have a "sponsor" provide all other personnel and direct the process. This option was also
rejected as "ineffective," noting that if JPRA could "direct" the exploitation process, there would
bea
"good chance of [JPRA] making a real difference," but "if not," there are "too many other
responsl"b"l"
1 Ittes t 0 expend "." energy on. ,,100
_

The third option was described as follows:

JPRA fields and deploys core captivity/exploitation team - This team directs the
process under the lead of the JPRA Senior SERE Psychologist and receives all
additional specified support from a sponsor - Those sponsor individuals who
directly assist in the exploitation process will receive training from the JPRA
cadre. 101
_ _ While this option was recommended as the "[b]est match of expertise
and capability," the plan cautioned that JPRA "need[ed] to be careful in establishing this
relationship" and that JPRA should retain ''the authority to direct the entire process or current
mistakes will be repeated (GTMO, lack of experience of in-theater interrogators, ineffective
captivity handling and facility routine) - [The] JPRA plan should be implemented from the start
of detention through holding, transport, and exploitation.,,102
_
Dr. Jessen's draft exploitation plan described the means by which JPRA would
implement that recommendation, and included requirements for an undisclosed exploitation
facility and the means by which detainees would be transported and held there. 103

_ _ A section of Dr. Jessen's draft exploitation plan also identified "Critical
Operational Exploitation Principles" for interrogation operations. Those principles included:

(The only restricting factor should be the Torture Convention), [7] Established
latitude and ocess to offer and validate information for concessions

100

Ibid.

101

Ibid.

102

Ibid.

The plan also described requirements for the management of the facility identical to those included in the
"Prisoner Handling Recommendations" previously prepared by JPRA for SOUTHCOM. Ibid.; Memo for Col
Cooney, Prisoner Handling Recommendations (February 28,2002).

103

104

JPRA, Exploitation Drqft Plan (emphasis added).

_ _ When asked about the plan, which his email referred to as "my" plan,

Dr. Jessen said that there are elements that he did not draft. 105 For example, he told the
Committee that he did not believe that the Torture Convention was the only controlling authority
for exploitation Rules of Engagement. 106 Dr. Jessen, however, did not reject the idea of having
JPRA support the exploitation process. Dr. Jessen said that he knew how to set up training
programs, had observed numerous "interrogations" at SERE school, and thought that some JPRA
instructors could make excellent interrogators. 107 He also told the Committee that he supported
having SERE psychologists observe interrogations and provide advice and assistance to
interrogators, but that that he did not support having SERE psychologists in the interrogation
booth with interrogators and detainees.
(U) Upon receiving the plan, JPRA Commander Col Randy Moulton asked Dr. Jessen to
craft a briefmg to ''take up for approval," which included "why we (USG) need it, how it falls
within our chartered responsibilities (or if not, why we should do it) and then make a
recommendation,,108 Col Moulton testified to the Committee that he did not recall any
subsequent JPRA briefmgs for U.S. Joint Forces Command on Dr. Jessen's draft exploitation
plan and did not remember whether or not the plan was implemented. 109

II.

Development of New Interrogation Authorities (U)

CIA's Interrogation Program and the Interrogation ofAbu Zubaydah (U)

(U) Abu Zubaydah was captured by Pakistani and CIA forces on March 28, 2002.
According to former CIA Director George Tenet, once Zubaydah was in custody, the CIA "got
into holding and interrogating high-value detainees" (HVDs) "in a serious way."uo ThenNational Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that "in the spring of2002, CIA sought policy
approval from the National Security Council to begin an interrogation program for high-level alQaida terrorists."lll Then-NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that he asked CIA to have the
proposed program reviewed by the Department of Justice and that he asked CIA to seek advice
not only ~om Do]' s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) but also from the Criminal Division. 112 Ms.
Rice said that she asked Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to briefNSC Principals on
the proposed CIA program and asked Attorney General Ashcroft "personally to review the

10~ The Department of Defense confrrmed that the "Exploitation Draft Plan" in the Committee's possession was, in
fact, attached to Dr. Jessen's April 16, 2002 email, making it the same document Dr. Jessen referred to as "my initial
draft plan."
106

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July 11, 2007).

107

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2007).

108

Email from Col Randy Moulton to Bruce Jessen, Christopher Wirts, Mike Dozier (April 17, 2002).

109 The Authorization of Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) Techniques for Interrogations in Iraq: Part
II of the Committee's Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, Senate Committee on Armed
Services, 110· Congo (September 25,2008) (hereinafter "SASC Hearing (September 25,2008)").
110

George Tenet, At The Center Of The Storm (New York: Harper Collins Publishers 2007) at 241.

III

Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

112

John Bellinger answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

legality of the proposed program. ll3 She said that all ofthe meetings she attended on the CIA's
interrogation program took place at the White House and that she understood thatDoJ's legal
advice "was being coordinated by Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales.,,114
(U) According to President Bush, the agency developed an "alternative set" of ,"tough"
interrogation techniques, and put them to use on Zubaydah and other HVDs. 115 Though virtually
all ofthe techniques that were used on Zubaydah remain classified, CIA Director Michael
Hayden confirmed that waterboarding was used on Zubaydah. 116 Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Steven Bradbury testified before Congress that the "CIA's
use ofthe waterboarding procedure was adapted from the SERE training program.,,117 When
asked whether she was present for discussions about physical and/or psychological pressures
used in SERE training, Secretary Rice recalled "being told that U. S. military personnel were
subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques." 118 Mr.
Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, stated that he was "present in meetings at which SERE
training was discussed.,,119
(U) Public reports have identified a retired U.S. Air Force SERE psychologist, Dr. James
Mitchell, as having participated in the CIA's interrogation ofZubaydah. 120 Dr. Mitchell, who
retired from the Air Force in 2001, agreed to speak to the Committee about his time at DoD.

113 Secretary Rice said that in 2002-2003, she 'participated in a number of discussions of specific interrogation
techniques proposed for use by the CIA" Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from
Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008). .
114

Ibid.

115 In a September 6,2006 speech, President Bush stated that since September 11, 2001, a "small number of
suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United
States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The President stated that the CIA used
"an alternative set of procedures" in interrogating the detainees. According to the President, the CIA techniques
"were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary." The President identified Abu Zubaydah as one
detainee who was subject to the CIA's alternative techniques. Press Briefmg with President George W. Bush
(September 6,2(06); see also Tenet, At The Center Of The Storm at 241.

116 Current and Projected National Security Threats, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1101h Congo (February
5,2008).
117 Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 110Ih Congo (February 14, 2008).
118

Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

119

John Bellinger answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

120 Jane Mayer, The Experiment, The New Yorker (July 11-18,2005); Jane Mayer, The Black Sites, The New Yorker
(August 13, 2007) ("According to an eyewitness, one psychologist advising on the treatment of Zubaydah, James
Mitchell, argued that he needed to be reduced to a state of 'learned helplessness.' (Mitchell disputes this
characterization)."); Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair Online (July 17, 2007), available at
http://www.vanityfair.com/politicS/features/2007107Itorture200707.
121

Committee staff interview of James Mitchell (July 10, 2007); Letter to Senator Carl Levin (June 22, 2007).

(U) An unclassified version of a May 2008 report by the Department of Justice (Dol)
Inspector General (IG) confirmed that FBI agents "initially took the lead in interviewing
Zubaydah at the CIA facility," but that "CIA personnel assumed control over the interviews"
when they arrived at the facility. 125

122

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (December 21,2007).

123

Ibid.

124

Ibid.

12'

DoJ IG Report at 68.

126 Committee staff interview of James Mitchell (July 10, 2007); Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent
(December 21,2007).

127

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (December 21,2007).

128

Ibid.

(U) The FBI Special Agent told the DoJ Inspector General that he also "raised objections
to these techniques to the CIA and told the CIA it was 'borderline torture. ",130 According to the
unclassified DoJ Inspector General's report, a second FBI agent present did not have a "'moral
objection'" to the techniques and noted that he had "undergone comparable harsh interrogation
techniques as part ofthe U.S. Army Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE)
training. ,,131

(U) According to the DoJ Inspector General's report, FBI Counterterrorism Assistant
Director Pat D' Amuro gave the instruction to both FBI agents to "come home and not participate
in the CIA interrogation." The first FBI Special Agent left immediately, but the other FBI agent
remained until early June 2002. 133 The report said that around the time of Zubaydah's
interrogation, FBI Director Robert Mueller decided that FBI agents would not participate in
interrogations involving techniques the FBI did not normally use in the United States, even
though the OLC had determined such techniques were legal. 134 Then-National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice said that she had a "general recollection that FBI had decided not to
participate in the CIA interrogations" but "was not aware that FBI personnel objected to
interrogation techniques used or proposed for use with Abu Zubaydah." 135

As.

JPRA Assistance to Another Government Agen£Y (U)
interro ation of Abu Zubaydah was ongoing,
The Chief of JPRA's Operational Support
ittee that he had five or fewer meetings withlll
interrogations. 136

130 U. S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, A Review ofthe FBI's Involvement in and
Observations ofDetainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq (May 2008) at 68 (hereinafter

"DoJ IG Report'').
131

Ibid. at 69.

132

Committee staff interview ofFEI Special Agent (December 21,2007).

133 DoJ IG Report at 69; see also Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 4. (Months later, in an October 2,
2002 meeting with DoD officials at Guantanamo Bay, Chief Counsel to the CIA's CounterTerrorist Center (CTC)
reportedly Jonathan Fredman conftrmed that "[w]hen the CIA has wanted to use more aggressive techniques in the
past, the FBI has pulled their personnel from theater.")
134

DoJ IG Report at 73.

m Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).
136

Committee staff interview of Christophe

Operationsfor JPRA support to anticipate
informal requests for JPRA support to prepar
separate meetings have been conducted betwee

(Janumy 4, 2007); see also JPRAlOSO,. conca
re uirements (October 3,2002). The memo states,
has made
to use exploitation/interrogation techniques ... Five
and JPRArepresentatives..."

_ _ At some noint in the first six months of 2002, JPRA assisted with the
preparation of~sent to interrogate a high level al Qaeda operative. 137 In a June
20,2002 memo to JPRA's Commander Randy Moulton, JPRA's Deputy Commander Col John
Prior, characterized the assistance as ''training'' and noted that the psychologist had suggested
"exploitation strategies" to
officer. 138

11_ Dr. Broce Jessen JPRA's senior SERE psychologist, told the Committee
that he had met with a
have offered the

who was en route to an interrogation L39 He said h e .
but that he did not discuss

_
JPRA also conduct~ and pre-mission preparation for a group of
~ o On June 17,2002~~entarequesttotheJoint~D

two-da JPRA training. 1 That request was drafted by an~
and Mr. Wirts, JPRA's OSO Chief. L42 DoD General Counsel Jim
Haynes told the Committee that he had been made aware ofa " request for IPRA training at
least as early as late surmner 2002.L43

oval for

re uest asked that JPRA provide training
on
topics such a
deprivation techniques," "exploitation and questioning
techniques," and "dev.loing countermeasures to resistance techniques."144 The training was
officers for rotations in Afghanistan and elsewhere...145
intended to "prepare

_
In response to that request, JPRA Deputy Commander Col John Prior
recommended to the JPRA Commander:

I~Memofrom Col John Prior II to JPRNCC (Col Randy Moultm), Requestfrom"or Interrogation
Training Support (J\U1e 20, 2002).

l]8lbid.

139.Initially, the s~or SERE psychologist could not recall ifhe provided this assistance to the
while he was still working at JPRA or if the assistance had ~r he left JPRA After he left JPRA in 2002.
the senior SERE psychologist began working as a contractor t
but was restricted from discussing the
nature of his work with the Committee. Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2(07).
140.Mcmo from
Focal Point Bran~ to Joint Sta~
Activities Branch, (U) Request/or JPRA Personnel/or Training (June 17, 20(2) (hereina~
_ _ Request/or JPRA Personnel/or Training (J\D1e 17, 2002)").

~ Special

141

Request/orJPRA Personnel/or Training (J\Ule 17, 2002).

141

11 Fax cover sheet f r o m _ t o Christopher Wirts (via Colin Junkins) (June 18, 20(2).

lCJ

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2(08) at 40.

144
Request/or JPRA Personnel or Training (June 17, 2(02). In a draft of the request written
by JPRA's OSO Chief Christopher Wirts and sent to
14, 2002, Mr. Wirts identified the same topics
for training. Mr. Wirts explained to his point of contact a
that their ability to support the request was
hindered Py Dr. Jessen's availability, who Mr. Wirts described 88 "critical in •
.:
.... .:.A
!.II' that
is requiring." Memo from Christopher Wirts ( v i a _ to
Support to Operation Enduring F1Vedom (OEF) (June 14,2002).

14'_
I

Request/orJPRA Personnel/or Training (June 17,2002).

Because of the urgent need to extract infonnation from captured al Qaeda
operatives, and because JPRA has the sole repository ofthe r~
JPRA personnel should provide this expertise and training t o _
To prevent compromise and inadvertent modification of JPRA's charter,
personnel will avoid linking JPRA directly to this training.
. . . Having the true exploitation and captivity environment eJoi:perts and specialists,
JPRA may be called upon in extremis to actually participate in fhture eXl'loitation
offoreign prisoners; this request would clearly fall outside JPRA's chartered
responsibilities; ifthis request is made, JPRA would require a SecDef policy
determination ... 146
_ C o l Prior's memo stated that the JFCOM J-3 or his office had be~sed of
•
support requests. 147 A Joint Staff Action Processing Fonn indicated that_ _ request
was endorsed by JPRA, JFCOM, Joint Staff, and the Office ofthe Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy and approved on June 27, 2002. 148
_
In advance ofthe training, JPRA developed a two day lesson f o r _
~ h e"full spectrum rot] exploitation," including both explanations and
demonstrations ofphysical pressures that were approved for use at JPRA's SERE school. 149 At
the time, JPRA-approved teclmiques included body slaps, face slaps, hooding, stress positions,
waJling, immersion in water, stripping, isolation, and sleep deprivation, among others. ISO
_ T h e two day training took place at_headquarters on July 1-2,2002.151
Accordin to a Jul 16 2002 after action memo re ared for Col Moulton, the trainin covered
Time was also set aside for
recently been conducting interrogations in Afghanistan to discuss their experiences. Other time
was spent covering the physical and psychological pressures used at SERE school Dr. Gary

146 _

Memo from Col John Prior II to JPR..:VCC (Col Randy Moulton), Request/rom_/or Interrogation

Training Support (June 20, 2002).

14~Memo from Col John Prior II to JPRAlCC (Col Randy Moulton), Request/fom~or Interrogation
Training Support (June 20, 2002). Although Col John Prior told the Committee that he could not recall the Jeme 20,
2002 memo, JPRA Commander Col Randy Moulton recalled receiving it at the time. Since the Committee's
interview of Col Prior, the Department of Defense has provided the Committee with a copy of the memo that was

signed by him.
148

11 Joint Staff Action Processing Form, (U) JPRA Personnel/or Training (June 27, 2002).

149 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 63-64,69.
l~O

Ibid. at 64-69.

~mo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wilt'S, E.r:ploitation Training/o.
_ ( J u l y 16,2002).
1~2

Ibid.

Percival, a JPRA instructor at the training, said that in their demonstration of ph sical pressures,
JPRA instructor Joseph Witsch acted as the "beater" while he was the "beatee." 53

_
In addition to explaining and demonstrating the physical pressures used at SERE
school, the JPRA personnel also provided instmction on waterboarding. 1s4
(D) At the time, waterboarding was only used by the U.S. Navy SERE school and its use
was prohibited at the JPRA, Anny, and Air Force SERE schools. ISS The U.S. Navy has since
abandoned its waterboarding at its SERE schools. None ofthe JPRA personnel who provided
the assistance had ever conducted waterboarding and would not have been qualified to do so at
SERE school. 1S6

_ _ The July 16, 2002 after action memo stated that
al
personnel were also present for the training. 157 According to the memo,
personnel
"requested and were granted time to present the legal limits of physiological and psychological
pressures that were acceptable at the present time." 158 The after action memo described the legal
briefing:
Their 30-40 [minute] brief was very supportive. Basically, _
were told
they could use all forms of psychological pressure discussed and all of the
physiological pressures with the exception of the 'water board.' They were
advised that should they feel the need to use the water board, they would need
prior approval. They were also briefed on the ramifications for participating in
torture, which under international law is defined as a 'capital crime' and could
result in a death sentence if convicted. An eye opener to say the least. 159
_
The JPRA instmctors who conducted the training did not recall_lawyers
providing any further guidance about how to seek approval for use ofthe waterboard in an
interrogation. 160
(D) However, Chief Counsel to the
Jonathan
Fredman later described an approval process for the use ofaggressive interrogation techniques

IS]

Committee staff interview of Gary Percival (July 25, 2007).

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 69.

us Memo from Dr. Percival to JPRA CC (Col Moulton), Comments on Physical Pressures usedfor C oC Training
(June 18, 2004)
156

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 69.

u~mo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wirts, E:.\ploitation Trainingfmll
_

(July 16,2002).

IS8

Ibid.

1-'9

Ibid. (emphasis in original).

160

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 75.

reportedly explaining that "[t]he CIA makes the call internally on most ofthe types of
techniques," but that "[s]ignificantly harsh techniques are approved through the DOJ.,,161
_
In his after action memo f r o m _ training, JPRA instructor Joseph Witsch
stated that ''the training seemed well received and beneficial for the majority ofthe personnel
present.,,162 He observed that some ofthe class participants had "little to no[ ] experience" in
interrogation and others had "recently returned from conducting actual interrogations in
Mghanistan.,,163

l1li_

In his memo, Mr. Witsch also commented on JPRA's future support to
interrogations, writing:
I believe our niche lies in the fact that we can provide the ability to exploit
personnel based on how our enemies have done this type of thing over the last
five decades. Our enemies have had limited success with this methodology due to
the extreme dedication of [American] personnel and their harsh and mismanaged
application of technique. The potential exists that we could refine the process to
achieve effective manipulation/exploitation. We must have a process that goes
beyond the old paradigm of military interrogation for tactical information or
criminal investigation for legal proceedings. These methods are far too limited in
scope to deal with the new war on global terrorism.,,164
_
Mr. Witsch recommended that JPRA develop two courses for future JPRA
customers - a basic course and an advanced course to deal with "senior, hardcore, and resistance
trained detainees. ,,165 The courses, he said, will need "immediate attention and will require a
total role reversal from current methodology and our standard approaches to training. It will take
a cross section of SERE experienced personnel-SERE instructors, psychologists, MDs and
intelligence personnel to effectively develop this new approach to captive handling and
manipulation.,,166

Senior SERE Psychologist Detailed From Department ofDefense to Other
Government Agency (U)

In July 2002, after the JPRA training f o r _ the senior SERE
psychologist, Dr. Bruce Jessen was detailed to~S.167 At the conclusion of

161

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 4.

16~ Memo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wirts, Exploitation Trainingjo_

(July 16,2(02).

163

Ibid.

164

Ibid.

16'

Ibid.

166

Ibid.

167

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July 11, 2007).

this assignment, Dr. Jessen retired from the Department of Defense and began working as an
independent contractor t~ 168

(U) Dr. Jessen did tell the Committee that, in some circumstances, physically coercive
techniques are appropriate for use in detainee interrogations. He said that the use of physically
coercive techniques may be appropriate when (1) there is good reason to believe that the
individual has perishable intelligence, (2) the techniques are lawful and authorized, (3) they are
carefully controlled with medical and psychological oversight, (4) someone (who is not
otherwise involved in the interrogation) can stop the use ofthe techniques, and (5) the techniques
do not cause long-term physical or psychological harm. 170 Dr. Jessen acknowledged that
empirically, it is not possible to know the effect of a technique used on a detainee in the longterm, unless you study the effects in the long-term. However, he said that his conclusion about
the long-term effects of physically coercive techniques was based on forty years oftheir use at
SERE school. 171
(U) Subsequent to his retirement from DoD, Dr. Jessen joined Dr. Mitchell and other
fonner JPRA officials to fonn a company called Mitchell Jessen & Associates. Mitchell Jessen
& Associates is co-owned by seven individuals, six of whom either worked for JPRA or one of
the service SERE schools as employees and/or contractors. l72 As of July 2007, the company had
between 55 and 60 employees, several of whom were fonner JPRA employees. 173

Department ofDefense General Counsel Seeks Information on SERE
Techniques From JPRA (U)

(U) Just weeks after the JPRA provided assistance to the OGA, DoD Deputy General
Counsel for Intelligence Richard Shiffrin contacted JPRA Chief of Staff Daniel Baumgartner
seeking a list of exploitation and interrogation techniques that had been effective against
Americans. 174 In testimony to the DoD Inspector General (IG), Mr. Shiffrin stated that he made

168

Ibid.

169

Ibid.; Letter to Chainnan Levin (June 22,2(07).

Iii) Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2007). Lawyers for Dr. Mitchell informed the
Committee that he shares the same view as his colleague, Dr. Jessen.

171

Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (November 13, 2007).

172 Committee staff interview of James Mitchell (July 10, 2007); Committee staff interview of Bruce Jessen (July II,
2007).
173 Committee staff interview of James Mitchell (July 10, 2(07); Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts
(January 4, 2008).

174

Email from Lt Col Dan Baumgartner to Col Randy Moulton et aI. (July 25, 2002).

the request after several conversations with General Counsel Jim Haynes. 175 Mr. Shiffiin later
said that everything he asked for from JPRA was to respond to requests from Mr. Haynes. 176 Mr.
Haynes testified to the Committee that he could not remember "specifically" asking Mr. Shiffiin
for infonnation on SERE techniques, but that he "asked generally" about that subject sometime
in the summer of2002. He also said that he remembered being "interested" in that infonnation,
and that ifhe had requested it, he would have requested it through Mr. Shiffrin. 177 Although Mr.
Haynes did not say why he was interested in this infonnation, when asked whether he had
discussed "SERE techniques with [] Messrs. Gonzales, Addington, Rizzo, Y00, or any ofthe
other senior lawyers" he met with "regularly," Mr. Haynes testified to the Committee that he
"did discuss SERE techniques with other people in the administration. ,,178
(U) JPRA Chief of Staff Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner said that when the request from the
General Counsel's office came in, he called Col Moulton and Brig Gen Thomas Moore, the
JFCOM Director for Operations (J3), and received permission to provide the requested
infonnation to the General Counsel's office. 179 JPRA initially responded to the General
Counsel's inquiry on July 25, 2002 with a memorandum signed by Lt Col Baumgartner. 180

11_

The JPRA memorandum stated that "JPRA has arguably developed into the
DoD's experts on exploitation." It continued:
Recognizing the typical training for strategic debriefers in the intelligence
community did not include either SERE training (as a student) or grounding in
exploitation strategy and associated interrogation techniques, JPRA offered
assistance to intelli ence or anizations char ed with interviewin
detainees. JPRA
will briefthe Criminal Investigative Task
Force (CITF) next Tuesday to detennine their requirements. 181
(U) JPRA attached several lesson plans on exploitation and interrogation to the memo. 182
In closing, the memo stated:

175

DoD IG, Interview ofRichard Shiffrin (July 24, 20(6) at 6.

176

Committee staff interview of Richard Shiffrin (May 22,2007).

177

SASC Hearing (JWle 17, 2008).

178

Ibid

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007); see also email from Col Moulton to
(JWle 30, 2006) ("We [JPRA] initially received a call from OSD General Counscil (sic) requesting
information about resistance techniques used against U.S. POWs. I believe this was early on in Operation Enduring
Freedom. We were requested to provide that information within hours and were authorized by JFCOM to forward it
to OSD.... Once we Wlderstood what OSD/GC was looking for, we provided an list of techniques.")
179

180 Memo from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary ofDefense General Counsel, Exploitation
(July 25, 2002).
181

Ibid. at 1.

182

Ibid at 2-3.

The enclosed documents provide a thorough academic grounding in exploitation
and were built on what has been effective against Americans in the past. The
ability to exploit, however, is a highly specialized skill set built on training and
experience.
JPRA will continue to offer exploitation assistance to those
governmental organizations charged with the mission of gleaning intelligence
from enemy detainees. 183
(U) The memorandum and its attachments were delivered to the Deputy General Counsel
Richard Shiffrin by a JPRA employee and were emailed to relevant personnel at both JPRA and
Brig Gen Moore's office at JFCOM. I84 DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes did not recall whether
or not he saw the memo at the time, but said that "in all likelihood," he would have received the
memo, and that the timing ofthe memo coincided with his recollection of his meeting with JPRA
personnel. 18S
(U) According to Lt Col Baumgartner, prior to the July 25, 2002 memo being delivered
to the General Counsel's office, Mr. Shiffrin called him to ask for additional information,
including a list of techniques used by JPRA at SERE school. Mr. Shiffrin testified to the
Committee that he was ''under pressure" from Mr. Haynes to get the material to his office as
. k1 Y as POSSI'bl e. 186
qUlC
(U) Lt Col Baumgartner said that he thought the General Counsel's office was asking for
information on exploitation and physical pressures to use them in interrogations. Mr. Shiffrin
confirmed that one ofthe ~urposes for seeking information from JPRA was to "reverseengineer" the techniques. 1 7 Lt Col Baumgartner said that he wanted to be helpful, but that he
told Mr. Shiffrin that JPRA's techniques were designed to show Americans the worst possible
treatment that they may face, and that any recommendation for the use oftechniques on
detainees would require Administration approval. 188
(U) On July 26, 2002, JPRA completed a second memorandum with three attachments to
respond to the additional questions from the General Counsel's office. The memo stated that
"JPRA has arguably developed into the DoD's experts on exploitation and as such, has
developed a number of physical pressures to increase the psychological and physical stress on
students ... ,,189

Ibid. at 2; see also email from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Col Randy Moulton et al. (July 25, 2002) (Thanking
''the 'exploitation answer stuckee' team" for "an outstanding job answering IJ Mr. Hanes (sic) and Mr. Schiffren
(sic) (OSD Dep GC for Intel) on their question 'what exploitation techniques have worked against Americans?")

183

184 Email from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Col Randy Moulton et aI., copying Darrell Venture (JFCOM
Directorate of Operations) (July 25,2002).

18'

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 51,59.

186

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

187

Ibid.

188

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007).

189 Memo from Lt Col Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel, Exploitation and
Physical Pressures (July 26, 2002) at 1.

_ _ In the memo, JPRA informed the General Counsel's office that it had
already "assist[ed] in the training of interrogator/exploiters from other governmental agencies
charged with OEF exploitation of enemy detainees.,,190 The memo also stated:
Within JPRA's evolving curriculum to train interrogators/exploiters many
interrogation approaches are taught along with corresponding options for physical
pressures to enhance the psychological setting for detainee interrogation. Several
of the techniques highlighted (Atch 1) as training tools in JPRA courses, used by
other SERE schools, and used historically may be very effective in inducing
learned helplessness and 'breaking' the OEF detainees' will to resist.,,191
_
The ftrst attachment to the July 26, 2002 memo was -"Physical Pressures used in
Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees.,,192 That attachment
included a list oftechniques used to train students at SERE school to resist interrogation. The
list included techniques such as the facial slap, walling, the abdomen slap, use of water, the
attention grasp, and stress positions. 193 The ftrst attachment also listed techniques used by some
ofthe service SERE schools, such as use of smoke, shaking and manhandling, cramped
confinement, immersion in water or wetting down, and waterboarding.
_
JPRA's description ofthe waterboardingtechnique provided in that ftrst
attachment was inconsistent in key respects from the U.S. Navy SERE school's description of
waterboarding. According to the Navy SERE school's operating instructions, for example, while
administering the technique, the Navy limited the amount of water poured on a student's face to
two pints. However, the JPRA attachment said that "up to 1.5 gallons of water" may be poured
onto a "subject's face." While the Navy's operating instructions dictated that "[n]o effort will be
made to direct the stream of water into the student's nostrils or mouth," the description provided
by JPRA contained no such limitation for subjects ofthe technique. While the Navy limited the
use ofthe cloth on a student's face to twenty seconds, the JPRA's description said only that the
cloth should remain in place for a "short period oftime." And while the Navy restricted anyone
from placing pressure on the chest or stomach during the administration ofthis technique,
JPRA's description included no such limitation for sQbjects ofthe technique. 194
_
Attachment one also listed tactics derived from JPRA SERE school lesson plans
that were designed to "induce control, dependency, complia[n]ce, and cooperation," including
isolation or solitary confinement, induced physical weakness and exhaustion, degradation,

190

Ibid.

191

Memo from Lt Col Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense Geneml Counsel, Exploitation and

Physical Pressures (July 26, 2002) at 1.
192 JPRA, Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees, attached
to memo from Lt Col Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel (July 26,2(02).

193

Ibid.

Compare FASO Detachment Brunswick Instruction 3305.C (January 1, 1998) at E-5 with Physical Pressures
Used In Resistance Training and'Against American Prisoners and Detainees at 3-4.

194

conditioning, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, disruption of sleep and biorhythms, and
. IatIon
· 0 fd·Ie.
t 195
manlpu

(U) DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes told the Committee that although he could not
recall ifhe had seen the specific list of SERE physical pressures sent to his office on July 26,
2002, he knew that he had seen a list of physical pressures used in JPRA resistance training. 196

II Mr. Haynes also recalled that he may have been "asked that information be given to
the Justice Department for something they were working on," which he said related to a program
he was not free to discuss with the Committee, even in a classified setting. 197

(U) A second attachment to the July 26, 2002 JPRA memo to the General Counsel's
office was entitled "Operational Issues Pertaining to the use of Physical/Psychological Coercion
in Interrogation.,,198 In attachment two, JPRA stated that the memo did not purport to address
the "myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications oftorture; rather, [the memo focused onJ the key
operational considerations relative to the use of physical and psychological pressures.,,19
(U) Attachment two described operational risks associated with using "physical and/or
psychological duress" (a phrase that JPRA used interchangeably with ''torture'' throughout most
of attachment two) in interrogations. 20o The attachment said that one risk was that the use of
these methods would increase the "prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating.,,201 JPRA
explained that "[0 ]nce any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the
formerly cooperative relationship cannot be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of
resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or
brutal treatment. ,,202
(U) According to attachment two, another risk to using techniques that increase physical
and psychological duress was that it created doubts about the reliability and accuracy of
information obtained. 203 JPRA explained in attachment two that "[i]f an interrogator produces
information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the
reliability and accuracy ofthis information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain
may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop." 204

195

Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees.

196

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 87.

197

Ibid. at 88.

198 JPRA, Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use ofPhysicallPsychological Coercion in Interrogation (undated),
attached to memo from Lt Col Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel (July 26, 2002).
199

Ibid.

200

Ibid.

201

Ibid.

202

Ibid.

203

Ibid.

204

Ibid.

(U) A third operational risk was the potential impact that the physical and psychological
duress could have on treatment of US. personnel. 205 JPRA explained in attachment two that:

Another important aspect of the debate over the use of torture is the consideration
of its potential impact on the safety of US. personnel captured by current and
future adversaries. The unintended consequence of a US. policy that provides for
the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification
for the torture of captured US. personnel. While this would have little impact on
those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a standard means of
operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently
weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture of US. persons
to accept torture as an acceptable option. 206
(U) The third attachment to JPRA's July 26, 2002 memo was a memo from the Chief of
Psychology Services at the Air Force SERE school, Jerald Ogrisseg, on the "Psychological
Effects of Resistance Training.,,207 That memorandum, which was generated in response to a
specific request from the General Counsel's office, described available evidence on the longterm psychological effects of Air Force SERE training on US. personnel and commented from a
psychological perspective on the effects ofusing the waterboard.
(U) JPRA Chief of Staff Daniel Baumgartner said that when the General Counsel's office
requested a memo on the psychological effects ofresistance training, he called Dr. Ogrisseg at
the Department ofthe Air Force's Air Education and Training Command. 208 Dr. Ogrisseg said
that Lt Col Baumgartner asked his opinion during the phone call about his thoughts on
waterboarding the enemy.209 Dr. Ogrisseg recalled asking, "wouldn't that be illegal?,,210
According to Dr. Ogrisseg, Lt Col Baumgartner replied that people were asking "from above"
about using waterboarding in real world interrogations. 211 Dr. Ogrisseg recalled telling Lt Col
Baumgartner, "aside from being illegal, it was a completely different arena that we in the
Survival School didn't know anything about." 212
(U) Subsequent to that call, Dr. Ogrisseg reviewed the data on the effects of Air Force
SERE resistance training on students and produced his memo, concluding that "ifthere are any
long-term psychological effects of [US. Air Force Resistance Training], they are certainly
20'

Ibid.

206

Ibid.

Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, Psychological Effects ofResistance Training (July 24, 2002), attached to memo from Lt Col
Daniel Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel (July 26,2002) (hereinafter
"Psychological Effects ofResistance Training''').

'lIY1

Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, the Chief of Psychology Services at the Department of the Air Force's Air Education and
Training Command, told the Committee that he had accepted a position at JPRA prior to writing the memo but had
yet to officially change jobs. Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007).
208

209

SASC Hearing (June 17,2(08).

210

Ibid.

2ll

Ibid.

212

Ibid.

minimal." 213 The memo attributed this conclusion to efforts the Air Force SERE program
undertook to minimize the risk oftemporary psychological effects ofresistance training
becoming long-term effects. 214 The Air Force minimized the risk by, among other things,
performing three extensive debriefings during training. Dr. Ogrisseg said that "affording
students these opportunities to discuss their training experiences in open group environments
mitigates the risk ofturning a 'dramatic' experience into a 'traumatic' experience." 215 Hetold
the Committee that there are numerous controls in place at SERE school to ensure that the
training does not become "traumatic" for its students. 216
(U) Dr. Ogrisseg said that Lt Col Baumgartner also asked him "to comment on both the
physical and psychological effects of the waterboard," which he described in his memo as an
"intense physical and psychological stressor" used at the U.S. Navy SERE school. 217 Although
Dr. Ogrisseg had not used the waterboard himself, he had observed its use in a visit to the Navy
SERE School. He stated that, based on that visit, he did not believe that the ''water[] board
posed a real and serious physical danger to the students" who experienced it at the SERE school,
stating that the "Navy had highly qualified medical personnel immediately available to intervene,
and their students had all been medically screened prior to training. Psychologically, however,
the water[] board broke the students' will to resist providing information and induced
.
helplessness." 218
(U) Dr. Ogrisseg said that he was surprised when he found out later that Lt Col
Baumgartner had forwarded his memo to the General Counsel's office along with a list ofthe
physical and psychological techniques used in SERE school. 219 Dr. Ogrisseg said that his
analysis was produced with students in mind, not detainees. He stated that the conclusions in his
memo were not applicable to the offensive use of SERE techniques against real world detainees
and he would not stand by the conclusions in his memo if they were applied to the use of SERE
resistance training techniques on detainees.
(U) In a written response to a question posed by Senator Carl Levin after the

Committee's June 17,2008 hearing, Dr. Ogrisseg elaborated on that point noting several
"important differences between SERE school and real world interrogations that would limit [the]

2lJ

Psychological Effects ofResistance Training

214

Psychological Effects ofResistance Training at 1.

m Ibid.
216

Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007).

217 SASC Hearing (June 17,2008); Psychological Effects ofResistance Training at 2.
21S_When providing this memo to the General Counsel's office, Lt Col Bawngartner stated: "While there is
not much empirical data on the long term effects of physical pressures used in SERE schools (which fall well short
of causing' grave psychological damage'), the psychological staff at the Air Force SERE school makes some
interesting observations [] that suggest training techniques can be very effective in producing compliance while not
causing any long term damage." Memo from Lt Col Bawngartner to Office of the Secretary of Defense General
Counsel, Exploitation and Physical Pressures (July 26, 2002); Psychological Effects ofResistance Training at 2.
219 Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007).

conclusions [in his memo] to the SERE school training population." 220 Among those differences
Dr. Ogrisseg identified were (1) the extensive physical and psychological pre-screening
processes for SERE school students that are not feasible for detainees, (2) the variance in injuries
between a SERE school student who enters training and a detainee who arrives at an
interrogation facility after capture, (3) the limited risk of SERE instructors mistreating their own
personnel, especially with extensive oversight mechanisms in place, compared to the risk of
interrogators mistreating non-country personnel, (4) the voluntary nature of SERE training,
which can be terminated by a student at any time, compared to the involuntary nature of being a
detainee, (6) the limited duration of SERE training, which has a known starting and ending point,
compared to the often lengthy, and unknown, period of detention for a detainee, and (7) the
underlying goals of SERE school (to help students learn from and benefit from their training)
and the mechanisms in place to ensure that students reach those goals compared to the goal of
interrogation (to elicit infonnation).
(U) In addition, Dr. Ogrisseg also stated that, since writing his memo in July 2002, he had
reviewed studies about the effects of near death experiences, and that he had become concerned
about the use of waterboarding even as a training tool. 221 The U.S. Navy SERE school
abandoned its use ofthe waterboard in November 2007.
(U) Lt Col Baumgartner testified to the Committee that, subsequent to sending his two
memos and their attachments - including the list of SERE techniques - to the General Counsel's
office, another government agency asked for the same information. Lt Col Baumgartner said
that he provided that information to the OGA. 222

IIIn his interview with the Committee, Lt Col Baumgartner said that. personnel had
contacted him requesting a copy ofthe same information that had been sent to the DoD General
Counsel. Lt Col Baumgartner recalled speaking to ~d a psychologist a t _
about the request and sending the information to the - - . 2 2 3

The Department ofJustice Changes the Rules (U)

(U) On August 1,2002, less than a week after JPRA sent the DoD General Counsel's
Office its memoranda and attachments, the Department of Justice issued two legal opinions
signed by then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Jay Bybee.
(U) Before drafting the August 1,2002 opinions, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
the OLC John Y 00 had met with Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and Counsel to the
Vice-President David Addington to discuss the subjects that he intended to address. 224 ThenDr. Ogrisseg also explained that "[w]hile long-term psychological harm can occur from relatively brief
distressing experiences, the likelihood of psychological harm is generally increased by more lengthy and uncertain
detentions." Responses of Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg to Questions for the Record (July 28, 2008).

220

221

Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007).

222

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

223

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007).

224 According to Mr. Addington, he met "regularly" with a group of lawyers that included DoD General Counsel Jim
Haynes, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and the CIA General Counsel John Rizzo. This group that met

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that she understood that the Department of
Justice's legal advice to the CIA "was being coordinated by Counsel to the President Alberto
Gonzales.,,225
(U) The frrst ofthe two August 1,2002 OLC memoranda, known to many as the "First
Bybee" memo, presented OLC's narrow interpretation of what constituted torture under U.S.
law. The memo stated that the federal anti-torture statute of 1994 prohibited "only extreme acts"
and that in order to constitute torture, physical pain would have to be equivalent in intensity to
that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impainnent of bodily
functions or even death.,,226 For mental pain to rise to the level oftorture, according to the
memo, it would have to result in "si~ficant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g.,
lasting for months or even years.,,22 The First Bybee memo also found that the federal antitorture statute may not be applicable to interrogations ordered by the President ifhe acted
pursuant to his Constitutional commander-in-chief powers. Further, the memo argued that even
if the federal anti-torture statute could be construed to apply to such interrogations, the defenses
of necessity and self-defense could potentially eliminate criminal liability under the statute. 228
(U) The First Bybee memo also effectively dispensed with the "specific intent"
requirement of the federal anti-torture statute by narrowly defining that requirement. The federal
anti-torture statute states that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be "specifically intended
to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.,,229 The First Bybee memo stated that in
order "for a defendant to have acted with specific intent, he must expressly intend to achieve the
forbidden act.,,230 Under that interpretation, to violate the law, a person must expressly intend to
commit torture and the memo stated that "knowledge alone that a particular result is certain to
occur does not constitute specific intent."

regularly - which Mr. Addington said was referred to as the "War COWlcil" by Mr. Haynes - also included OLC
lawyers John Yoo and Tim Flanigan. According to Mr. Addington, the group of lawyers met about a "range of
issues," including interrogation of enemy combatants in the war on terror. When Mr. Haynes was asked whether he
had discussed "SERE techniques with [] Messrs. Gonzales, Addington, Rizzo, Y00, or any of the other senior
lawyers" he met with "regularly," Mr. Haynes testified to the Committee that he "did discuss SERE techniques with
other people in the administration." These conversations occurred prior to the December 2, 2002 approval of
aggressive interrogation techniques, including those derived from SERE, by the Secretary of Defense. See From the
Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part
III, House Committee on the JudiciaI)', Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 11 Oth
Congo (JWle 26, 2008) (Testimony of David Addington); SASC Hearing (JWle 17, 2008) (Testimony of William 1.
Haynes II); The Terror Presidency at 22.
125

Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

The memo was leaked to the press in JWle 2004 and was rescinded by the OLC later that month. Memo from
Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to White House COWlSeI Alberto Gonzales, Standards o/Conduct/or
Interrogation under 18 U.S.c. §§ 2340-2340A (August 1,2002).

226

227

Ibid.

228

Ibid.

229

18 U.S.c. § 2340(1) (2008).

230 Memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Standards 0/
Conduct/or Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (August I, 2002).

(U) Jack Goldsmith, who succeeded Jay Bybee as Assistant Attorney General of the OLC
in 2003, described the First Bybee memo's conclusions and their effect:

[V]iolent acts aren't necessarily torture; if you do torture, you probably have a
defense; and even if you don't have a defense, the torture law doesn't apply if you
act under color of presidential authority. CIA interrogators and their supervisors,
under pressure to get information about the next attack, viewed the opinion as a
'golden shield,' as one CIA official later called it, that provided enormous
comfort. 231
(U) The second August 1,2002 OLC legal opinion was also signed by Assistant Attorney
General Jay Bybee. 232 According to a declaration made to the United States District Court for
the Southern District ofNew York. by the Information Review Officer for the CIA, the so-called
"Second Bybee" memo is an I8-page legal memorandum from the OLC to the Office of General
Counsel ofthe CIA containing "information relating to the CIA's terrorist detention and
interrogation program" and "advice to· the CIA regarding potential interrogation methods." 233
According to the filing, the CIA requested the legal guidance from the Department of Justice. 234
A February 1, 2005 letter from the Justice Department to Senator Arlen Specter, then-Chairman
ofthe Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that the Second Bybee memo gave the CIA "specific
advice concerning specific interrogation practices, concluding that they are lawful." 235 And the
unclassified report of the Department ofJustice Inspector General explained that the opinion
analyzed "specific techniques approved for use on Zubaydah includ[ing] waterboarding ... ,,236

-----

- -

---

- - - - -

231 Former Assistant Attorney General for the OLC Jack Goldsmith, who rescinded the memo, criticized the First
Bybee memo as legally flawed, redundant and one-sided, tendentious in tone, unnecessarily narrow in its defInition
of torture, and widely broader than necessary in its assessment of Presidential authorities. The Terror Presidency at
143-51.
232

The Second Bybee memo has been withheld from the Committee.

Sixth Dec!. of Marilyn A Dorn, ~ 56, American Civil Liberties Union, et aL v. Department ofDefense, et aL, No.
04-Civ. 4151 (January 5,2007).

233

Sixth Dec!. of Marilyn A Dorn, ~ 62, American Civil Liberties Union, et aL v. Department ofDefense, et aL, No.
04-Civ. 4151 (January 5, 2007).

234

Letter from Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella to Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Arlen Specter (February 1, 2005); see also The Terror Presidency at 150-151 (According to Jack Goldsmith, the
First Bybee memo "analyzed the torture statute in the abstract, untied to any concrete practices" and then the Second
Bybee Memo, "applied this abstract analysis to approve particular" interrogation techniques.)

23'

236 DoJ IG Report at 101, fn. 73; see also From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration
Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part IlL House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, llOlh Congo (June 26, 2008) (prepared testimony of John Y00)
("OLC was asked to evaluate the legality of interrogation methods proposed for use with Zubaydah.")
237

DoJ IG Report.

that he "expressed concern that the proposed CIA interrogation techniques comply with
applicable u.s. law, including our international obligations. 238
(U) The Committee has been denied the Second Bybee memo and does not know which
specific interrogation practices, other than waterboarding, were analyzed in the memo. A
heavily redacted version ofthe Second Bybee memo, released on July 24, 2008, provides no
further details about the specific interrogation practices that were analyzed by the OLC. 239 The
unredacted sections only make clear that the OLC applied its analysis in the First Bybee memo to
a set of (redacted) facts at issue in the Second Bybee memo. 240 And while public sources have
suggested that the OLC's analysis applied to Zubaydah, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General
John Yoo suggested in recent testimony that it "perhaps" applied to others "similarly situated.,,241
(U) According to Acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo, the techniques that the OLC
analyzed in the Second Bybee memo were provided by his office. In his testimony before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Rizzo stated that his office was "the vehicle" for
getting the interrogation practices analyzed in the Second Bybee memo to the Department of
Justice.,,242

IILt Col Baumgartner, the JPRA Chief of Staff, recalled sending a copy ofthe same

to.

information that he had sent to the DoD General Counsel - including the list of SERE techniques
and Dr. Ogrisseg's memo on the pSf.;chological effects of Air Force SERE training and on
attorney. 43 Mr. Haynes, the DoD General Counsel, recalled that in the
waterboarding context of reviewing the list of SERE techniques provided to his office, that he may have been
"asked that information be given to the Justice Department for something they were working
on.,,244
(U) With respect to the issues addressed in Dr. Ogrisseg's memo relating to the
psychological effects of resistance training, Mr. Haynes said that he knew that there was a

238

John Bellinger answers to July 31,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

239

The remainder of the Second Bybee memo has not been released publicly.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the OLC John Y00, who participated in the drafting of the Second Bybee
memo, added that in the context of the Zubaydah interrogation, application of the federal anti-torture statute to the
facts "depend[ed] not just on the particular interrogation method, but on the subject's physical and mental
condition." From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration
Interrogation Rules, Part llI, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties, 110th Congo (June 26, 2008).
240

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation
Rules, Part III, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties, 11 Oth Congo (June 26, 2008).

141

Nomination of John Rizzo to be CIA General Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 110th Congo
(June 19, 2007).

141

143

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007).

144

Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 88.

government interest in that subject, but that he did not know if that information was used as
support in any OLC legal analysis, and ifhe did know, he did not recall. 245
(U) Then-NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that some ofthe legal analysis of
proposed interrogation techniques prepared by the DeEartment of Justice referred to ''the
psychological effects of military resistance training." 46 In fact, Jay Bybee, the Assistant
Attorney General who signed the two August 1,2002 opinions, said that he saw an assessment of
the psychological effects of military resistance training in July 2002 in meetings in his office
with John Y 00 and two other OLC attorneys. Judge Bybee said the assessment - which to the
best of his recollection had been provided by the CIA - informed the August 1, 2002 OLC legal
opinion that has not been released publicly.247 In his June 26, 2008 testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee, John Y00 refused to say whether or not he ever discussed or received
information about SERE techniques as the August 1, 2002 memos were being drafted. 248
(U) While Judge Bybee said that he did not recall "any written advice provided to any
governmental agency prior to August 1, 2002, on the meaning of the standards of conduct
required for interrogation under the federal anti-torture statute or on specific interrogation
methods," the August 1,2002 memos were not the only occasion on which DOJ provided legal
advice on the CIA's interrogation program. 249 John Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, said that
he understood that in 2002 and 2003, the OLC provided "ongoing advice to CIA regarding CIA's
interrogation program.,,250 And then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that she
was present at "several" meetings in the White House at which Mr. Yoo provided legal advice. 251
Ms. Rice said that she asked Attorney General John Ashcroft "personally to review and confIrm"
DoJ's legal guidance. 252

JPRA's Special Program In Support o.(U)
1.

August 2002 Training Proposal (U)

On Au t 12,2002, a week and a half after the OLC issued its two legal
opinions, the
sent JPRA Chief of Staff Lt Col
Baumgartner and JPRA OSO Chief Christopher Wirts a draft memorandum outlining t h e _

Ibid. at 104, 106; see also Redacted version of Memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, Interrogation
of[redacted] (August 1,2002) (In the unredacted sections of the Second Bybee memo, the memo states: "Your
review of the litemture uncovered no empirical data on the use of these procedures, with the exception [redacted].")
145

246

John Bellinger answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

147

Jay Bybee answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (October 14, 2008).

From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation
Rules, Part ill, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties, 1101b Congo (June 26, 2008).

148

149

Jay Bybee answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (October 14, 2008).

250

John Bellinger answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).

Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).
252 Ibid.
251

[I]nformation that your organization has already provided, coupled with our
officers' experience confIrms our opinion that JPRA assets are more than capable
of rovidin the necess
trainin that we need to start our initiatives. Basically,
consisting
of academic training and practical exercises aimed at learning both interrogation
and resistance to interrogation techniques. 255
_ _ _ draft described four areas of"trainin
(1) "Academic Training," including ··legal perspectives,'
(2)
'·Resistance Training," including academic lessons in interrogation and resistance to
interrogation techniques, such as psychological or physiological pressures; (3) "Practice
Interrogations/Resistance to [I]nterrogations/[F]eedback," including practice on "[p]hysical
pressures techniques and training"; and (4) "Review and Training of Resistance Training
Operating Instructions. ,,256

Memo from_to Chief of Staff, JPRA (Lt Col Daniel Baumgartn~hief, Mission Support
(Christopher Wirts), Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 2002) (hereinafter _ t o JPRA, Requestfor
Training Support (August 12, 2002)").

254

Ibid. (emphasis added).

255

Ibid.

2 5 6 _ to

JPRA, Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 20~ did not have the

~o teach "legal perspectives" and in his discussions w i t h " - " ' - about the training,

_ _ indicated that JPRA would not be expected to teach that topic. Committee staff interview of Christopher
Wirts (Janumy 4, 2008).

2'8

Ibid.

259

Ibid.

260

Ibid.

261

Ibid.

262

Ibid.

to JPRA, Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 2002).

(U) The Operating Instruction used to implement DOD directive 1300.7 are those

instructions that lPRA uses to implement its SERE-school training program.

JPRA Creates Project 22B (U)

_ _ Also o~st 12, 2002, a meeting was held at lPRA headquarters "to
discuss future JPRA sUPE0rt to_actions to obtain actionable intelligence from Detained
Col Randy Moulton describing
Unlawful Combatants." 66 A memo from JPRA's Co
that meeting reported that the JPRA training performed
to date had been well-received
and that "information and training that JPRA has provided
coupled with feedback from
nfi
d that JPRA
t
tha
bl f
.d" ~ th
th
.
~

. .

_ _ Col Moulton directed his team to develop a Concept of Operations
(CONOP) for continued support, stating that the JPRA CONOP would be staffed through the
Joint Staffand Office ofthe Secretary of Defense "to ensure proper oversight and approval prior
to execution ofthe plan." 269 A draft ofthat CONOP, circulated later in the year, described how
JPRA planned to f u l f i l l _ requirement for training, including how they would facilitate
the practice int~tion sessions - i.e., with JPRA members "portray[ing] resisters of different
skill levels" and_interrogators "demonstrat[ing] the ability to use exploitation methods and
concepts taught ... as well as us[ing] authorized physical pressures." 270 Among the risks
263

Ibid.

164

Ibid. (emphasis in original).

26~

Ibid.

Memo from JPRAlCC (Col Randy Moulton) to JPRA B/J7/PRA,
2002) at 1.

266

267

Ibid.

268

Ibid.

26!J

Ibid.

Memo from JPRA OSO,
3,2002).

270

II Support t . Project 22B (August 13,

Concept ofOperationsfor JPRA support to anticipated. requirements (October

described in that CONOP was "injury [to JPRA personnel] as a result of physical pressures
administered by
during the training.,,271
(U) At the August 12, 2002 meeting, JPRA created a special program which it called
Project 22B, to "limit JPRA distribution of sensitive activities in support ofliliiiil,,272

_
In his memo, Col Moulton wrote that protecting information associated with these
activities was "of paramount concern" t o _ and noted that~anticipates a
congressional investigation into this activity at some time in the future."

III.

Guantanarno Bay as a "Battle Lab" for New Interrogation Techniques (U)

JPRA was also developing a plan to support Department of Defense
interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). In the summer of 2002, following a
request from the Army's Special Operations Command (USASOC) to develop a training ~men
for GTMO interrogation personnel, JPRA modified the training plan it had developed for •
_
to produce a plan to train the GTMO personnel. In September, JPRA sent a team of
instructors, ~two instructors who had discussed and demonstrated SERE physical
pressures to_ _ officers in July, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to provide instruction at a
four day conference attended by the GTMO personnel.
(U) Just weeks after the JPRA training at Fort Bragg, two GTMO personnel who attended
the Fort Bragg training drafted a memo proposing the use of physical and psychological
pressures in interrogations at GTMO, including some pressures used at SERE schools to teach
U.S. soldiers how to resist interrogation by enemies that do not follow the Geneva Conventions.
(U) On October 11,2002, Major General Michael Dunlavey, Commander ofGTMO's
Joint Task Force 170 (JTF-170), submitted a modified version ofthat memo for approval by his
Chain of Command. On December 2,2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld approved many of
those techniques for use in interrogations at GTMO.

GTMO Stands Up a Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) (U)

(U) In June 2002, members ofthe Army's 85 th Medical Detachment's Combat Stress
Control Team deployed to Guantanamo Bay. ~ee members ofthe team psychiatrist Major Paul Burney, psychologist _
and a psychiatric technician were informed that MG Michael Dunlavey, the Conunander of JTF-170, had assigned them to
support interrogation operations as part ofa newly created Behavioral Science Consultation
Team (BSCT) at the JTF. This assignment came as a surprise to MAl Burney a n d _
because, when they were deployed, the two understood that their mission would be to care for

271

Ibid.

Memo from JPRNCC (Col Randy Moulton) to JPRA J3/J7IPRA,.SuPPOrl t o . Project 22B (August 13,
2002) at 1.

272

273

Ibid.

u. S. soldiers dealing with deployment-related stress. 274

In a written statement provided to the

Committee, MAJ Burney described the assignment:
Three of us;
[the enlisted psychiatric technician], and I, were
hijacked and immediately in processed into Joint Task Force 170, the military
intelligence command on the island. It turns out we were assigned to the
interrogation element because Joint Task Force 170 had authorizations for a
psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a psychiatric technician on its duty roster but
nobody had been deployed to fill these positions. Nobody really knew what we
were supposed to do for the unit, but at least the duty roster had its positions

filled.27~

(U) MG Dunlavey told the Committee that he was in the hospital for much ofthe month

of June and did not know who initiated the creation of the JTF-170 BSCT. 276

(U) Prior to their arrival at GTMO, neither MAJ Burney n~ had any training
to support interrogations and there was no standard operating procedure in place for the team at
GTMO. 277 MAJ Burney told the Committee that the team was "very aware of how little we
knew about the whole spectrum of detention and interrogation, we decided we needed help.278

Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) Personnel Contact the Army
Special Operations Command (USASOC) (U)

(U) Shortly after arriving at GTMO, the BSCT contacted the Chief ofthe Psychological

Applications Directorate (PAD) at the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command (USASOC),
LTC Louie "Morgan" Banks. 279 At the time LTC Banks was also the senior Army SERE
Psychologist. The BSCT psychologist.iiiiiilil had met LTC Banks prior to deploying to
GTMO but told the Committee that he was unaware at the time ofthe connections LTC Banks
had with the Army's SERE School.
Committee staff interview of MAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007); Committee staff interview of
(September 12, 2007).

174

175

Written statement of MAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007).

176

Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30, 2007).

177

178

Written statement ofMAJ Paul Burney (August 21,2007).

179

Committee staff interview o~(September 12, 2007).

A standard operating procedure was drafted in November 2002, several months after the BSCT was
established. It described BSCT tasks including: consulting on interrogation approach techniques, conducting
detainee file reviews to construct personality profiles and provide recommendations for interrogation strategies;
observing interrogations and providing feedback to interrogators on detainee behavior, flow of the interrogation
process, translator and cultural issues and possible strategies for further interrogation; and providing
consultation/training on specific behavioral science interviewing and observational techniques that promote
productive interrogation. The November SOP also stated that the BSCT "does not conduct medical evaluation or
treatment of detainees and does not participate in determining medical treatment protocols for detainees." While the
Committee does not know whether the SOP was ever approved, it comports with what BSCT members told the
Committee about their activities. J1F GTMO-BSCT Memoran~ord,BSCT Standard Operating
Procedures (November 11, 2002); Committee staff interview o~ (September 12, 2(07); Committee staff
interview of Paul Burney (August 21,2007).

II LTC Banks told the Committee that it was apparent to him that the BSCT28olacked the

proper training for the mission and that, when asked to help, he felt obliged to assist.
LTC
Banks contacted the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) for assistance in organizing
training for the BSCT. 281 After speaking to Col Moulton, the JPRA Commander, LTC Banks
interrogation
informed the BSCT that JPRA was willing to modify its prior
282
training sessions to suit the BSCT's needs.

(U) BSCT members told the Committee that they sought the training to better understand
the interrogation process. 283 They also told the Committee, however, that GTMO's Director for
Intelligence (J-2), LTC Jerald Phifer, approved their trip with the expectation that the BSCT
would learn about and bring back interrogation techniques that could be considered for use in
interrogations at GTMO; a point that the LTC Phifer confirmed in his testimony to the
Department ofthe Army Inspector General (Army IG).284 The Staff Judge Advocate at GTMO,
LTC Diane Beaver, confmned LTC Phifer's account, but said that MG Dunlavey told staffhe
had been considering a request for authority to use additional interrogation techniques and that
MG Dunlavey's purpose in sending the staffto the training was to "fmd out what could be
used.,,28s
(U) MAJ Burney said that he a n d _ made LTC Banks "aware that there was
interest within JTF-170 to see if we could use' SERE tactics' to try to elicit information from
detainees.,,286 _ t o l d the Committee that he believed that the two discussed the GTMO
command's interest in obtaining a list ofresistance training techniques with LTC Banks. 287 The
JPRA Operational Support Office Chief Christopher Wirts, told the Committee that he believed
that he and LTC Banks also talked about the need to demonstrate physical pressures used in
SERE schools at the Fort Bragg training. 288 LTC Banks, however, told the Committee that he
did not recall a discussion of physical pressures at the training and that he was surprised when he
later learned that the BSCT had expected to become familiar with resistance training techniques
used in SERE school while at the training session. 289

280

Committee staff interview of LTC Morgan Banks (July 2, 2(07).

281

Ibid.

282

Email from LTC Morgan Banks to MAJ Paul Burney (July 15, 2002).

283 Committee staff interview of
Burney (August 21,2007).

(September 12, 2007); Committee staff interview of MAJ Paul

284 Army IG, Interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (March 16,2006) at 8; Army IG, Interview ofMAJPaul Burney (April
28,2006) at 14.

28~ SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).
286

Written statement ofMAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007) at 4.

287 Committee staff interview o~ (September 12, 2007); Committee staff interview of MAJ Paul
Burney (August 21, 2007).
288

Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2008).

289

Committee staff interview of LTC Morgan Banks (July 2, 2007).

(D) At the time, there was a view by some at GTMO that interrogation operations had not
yielded the anticipated intelligence,29O MAl Burney testified to the Army IG regarding
interrogations:

[T]his is my opinion, even though they were giving information and some of it was
useful, while we were there a large part ofthe time we were focused on trying to establish
a link between AI Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link
between AI Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish
this link .. , there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce
.
d'late resu Its. 291
more mune
_The GTMO Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief, David Becker told the
Committee that at one oint interro ation personnel were required to question
but that he was unaware ofthe source of that
requirement. 292 Others involved in IfF -170 interrogation operations agreed that there was
pressure on interrogation personnel to produce intelligence, but did not recall pressure to identify
links between Iraq and al Qaeda. 293
•
_
Mr. Becker told the Committee that during the summer of 2002, the IfF -170
Commander, MG Dunlavey, and his Director for Intelligence (J-2), LTC Phifer, had urged him
to be more aggressive in interrogations. 294 Mr. Becker also told the Committee that MG
Dunlavey and LTC Phifer repeatedly asked him during this period why he was not using stress
positions in interrogations, even though the August 2002 Standard Operating Procedure for IfF170 expressly prohibited the use ofthe technique. 295 MG Dunlavey told the Committee that he
did not recall asking his staffwhy they were not using stress positions or telling them that they
should be more aggressive. 296

Mr. Becker also told the Committee that, on several occasions, MG Dunlavey had
advised him that the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz had called to express
concerns about the insufficient intelligence production at GTMO. 297 Mr. Becker recalled MG
Dunlavey telling him after one ofthese calls, that the Deputy Secretary himself said that GTMO

Army IG, Interview of MAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 6; Committee staff interview o~
(September 12, 2007).

290

291

Army IG, Interview ofMAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 6.

The ICE Chief told the Committee that interrogators identified only "a couple of nebulous links." Committee
staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

292

293 Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007); Committee staff interview o~
(September 12, 2007).
294

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

295 .JTF-170J2 Interrogation Section Standard Operating Procedures (August 20, 2(02) (emphasis in original)
(Detainees being interrogated will "remain seated and secured to the floor. DETAINEES WILL NOT BE PLACED
IN STRESS POSITIONS"); see also Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17,2007).
296

Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30,2007).

2Y1

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

should use more aggressive interrogation techniques. 298 MG Dunlavey told the Committee that
he could not recall ever having a phone call with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz or his staff 299

U.S. Southern Command Seeks External Review ofGTMO (U)

II Just as the JTF-170 BSCT was reaching out to LTC Banks for assistance,
SOUTHCOM was looking for advice to improve GTMO operations. In June 2002, Major
General Gary Speer, the Acting Commander of SOUTHCOM, requested that the Joint Staff
conduct an external review of intelligence collection operations at Guantanamo Bay.300 In
response, the Joint Staff directed COL John P. Custer, then-assistant commandant of the U.S.
Army Intelligence Center and School at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, to lead a review team.
• COL Custer's team visited GTMO in August and submitted its findings to the Joint
Staff on September 10,2002. 301 Like COL Herrington's assessment six months earlier, the
Cst"
"d ffi d
ber f' s
ha
. ~ GTMO"
t 11' .:.
11 ct'

IIcOL Custer also noted deficiencies in interrogation approaches used by JTF-170,
stating that:

II COL Custer recommended that SOUTHCOM, in coordination with JTF-170, provide
written guidance "delineating what tools and measures are available and permissible to leverage
control over the detainees while providing acceptable guidelines for questioning.,,304 He also
recommended combining the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and the IfF-170 BSCT to use both
military and law enforcement approaches to create an environment that would be "conducive to
extracting information by exploiting the detainee's vulnerabilities.,,305
198

Ibid.

300.
299

Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30,2007).

COL John Custer,. CJCS External Review ofGuantanamo Bay Intelligence Operations (U) (September
2002) (hereinafter "Custer Report"); see also BriefIng Slides, GTMO Review: Joint StaffExternal Review of
Intelligence Operations at Guantanamo Bay. Cuba (September 10, 2002).
Custer's team included subject matter experts from Fort Huachuca, the Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of
Defense.

301

302 With respect to personnel, Custer cited a dearth of linguists, noted a lack of cultural training among interrogators,
and called the entire mission "woefully undermanned." Custer Report at 2.
303

Ibid. at I I.

304

Ibid. at I2.

30'

Ibid. I I-12.

In his report, COL Custer referred to GTMO as "America's 'Battle Lab'" in the
global war on terror, observing that "our nation faces an entirely new threat framework," which
must be met by an investment of both human capital and infrastructure. 306
(U) Several witnesses expressed concerns to the Committee about using the term "Battle
307
Lab" to describe operations at GTMO.
In written answers to questionnaires from Senator Carl
Levin, COL Britt Mallow, the Commander of the Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITF),
stated:
MG Dunlavey and later MG Miller referred to GTMO as a "Battle Lab" meaning
that interrogations and other procedures there were to some degree experimental,
and their lessons would benefit DOD in other places. While this was logical in
terms of learning lessons, I personally objected to the implied philosophy that
interrogators should experiment with untested methods, particularly those in
which they were not trained. 308
(U) CITF's Deputy Commander, Mark Fallon, echoed the CITF Commander's concern.
Mr. Fallon stated that CITF did not concur with the Battle Lab concept because the task force
"did not advocate the application ofunproven techniques on individuals who were awaiting
trials.,,309 He emphasized that the CITF position was that "there were many risks associated with
this concept ... and the perception that detainees were used for some' experimentation' of new
unproven techniques had negative connotations.,,310
(U) MG Dunlavey told the Committee he did not think he would have used the term to
describe GTMO. 311 MG Miller told the Committee that he did not recall using the term and that
it would be inappropriate to apply it to an operational unit. 312

GTMO Personnel Attend Training at Fort Bragg (U)

(U) On September 16,2002, less than a week after COL Custer submitted his report to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seven personnel from JTF -170 at GTMO, including three members of
the BSCT and four interrogators, arrived at Fort Bragg for training organized by LTC Banks and
JPRA They were joined by a CIA psychologist and several Army personnel. 313 Joint Forces
306

Ibid. at 2.

Committee staff interviews ofMAJ Sam McCahon (June 15, 2007); COL Britt Mallow (May 7, 2007); Timothy
James (May 18, 2007).

307

Responses of COL Britt Mallow to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15, 2006). Two other
witnesses also told the Committee that the term "Battle Lab" was used by Major General Dunlavey to describe
GTMO operations. Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007); Committee staff interview of
Tim James (May 18, 2007).

308

309

Responses of Mark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (November 15, 2006).

310

Ibid.

3ll

Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30,2007).

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

313

Memo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton, Col John Atkins, Lt Col Baumgartner and Christopher Wirts,

USASOC Requirement to Provide Exploitation Instruction in Support ofOperation Enduring Freedom

Command (JFCOM) was formally notified on September 5, 2002 that JPRA intended to provide
training support to Army psychologists, but did not mention Guantanamo Bay or interrogation. 314
(U) JPRA sent senior SERE psychologist Gary Percival, who had recently assumed that
position after Dr. Jessen's departure, and two instructors to conduct the training at Fort Bragg.

II Dr. Percival and one ofthe two trainers, Joseph Witsch, had been instructors at the
exploitation training f o r . in July, where they had discussed and demonstrated physical
pressures. 315 In testimony before the Committee, the other JPRA trainer, Terrence Russell,
stated that the team had designed the training to provide attendees a "familiarization with the
academic or the theoretical application of exploitation from a SERE perspective.',316 A
contemporaneous email from JPRA Operational Support Office (OSO) Chief Christopher Wirts,
who was involved in planning the training, explained that it was intended to be "similar in nature
to what we did for OGA on the last iteration." 317 None ofthe three instructors sent by JPRA to
Fort Bragg was a trained interrogator. 318
_
According to a JPRA plan of instruction dated August 28, 2002, the fIrst day of
training included instruction on the stages 0
The next three da s oftrainin in the

A slide from that presentation stated that ''the
exploitation process is fairly simple but needs to be adhered to [to] be successful ifthe goal is to
increase the likelihood of obtaining useful intelligence information from enemy prisoners... ,,320
The esentation listed a number of"Critical 0 erational Ex loitation Princi les" includin
The "Principles" listed in the Fort Bragg training presentation

(OEF) (September 24, 2002) (hereinafter "USASOC Requirement to Pravide Exploitation Instruction (September
24, 2002)'').
314

JPRA to USClNCSOC, RequestJPRA Support, DTG: 052135ZSEP02 (September 5, 2002).

~ Memo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wirts, Exploitation Trainingfo'"
III(Ojjfcers (July 16, 2002); Committee staff interview of Dr. Gary-Percival (July 25,2007).
316

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 79.

317

Email from Christopher Wirts to JPRA Staff (August 8, 2002).

318

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 14; Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 25.

319

Memorandum from Joseph Witsch to JPRNCC, JPRNCD, JPRNCOS, JPRNOSO, Plan ofInstruction (POI)

320_

for USASOC Training Support (U) (August 28, 2002).

Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Exploitation ofCaptive, presentation to GTMO personnel at Fort

Bragg (September 2002) (hereinafter "JPRA, Exploitation ofCaptive").

321

Ibid. at 4.

were substantially the same as those described in the Exploitation Draft Plan, circulated by Dr.
Jessen in April, which described a JPRA-directed exploitation process. 322
_
Though GTMO was a facility that dealt with detainees after they had been
removed from the battlefield, the presentation also included information on "Tactical
estionin "statin that tactical interro ators should
,,323 Mr. Witsch, the JPRA instructor
who acted as Team Chief for the training, testified to the Committee:
Rough handling is you would pull the person up to their feet, you would move
them rapidly in the direction that you were going to take them... basically, they
have no control. They would feel like the person that has them is in total control
ofthem. That's what we mean by rough handling. 324
_
Presentation slides used for the trainin also listed a number of other
recommendations for handling detainees including
,,325 Mr. Witsch testified to the Committee that he did not
know what was meant by those statements and he could not recall any discussion about what
punishments might be culturally undesirable for Arab or Islamic detainees. 326
_ _ The presentation stated that "all daily activities should be on random
schedules" and should, among other things "disrupt prisoner sleep cycles.,,327 Mr. Witsch said
that denying detainees the ability to predict and determine their schedules "keeps them somewhat
off guard and guessing.,,328
_ _ A second JPRA presentation delivered at Fort Bragg described methods
to deal with detainees who were trained to resist interrogation. 329 The presentation, entitled
"Counter Measures to Defeat al Qaeda Resistance Contingency Training Based on Recently
Obtained AL-QA'IDA Documents" listed several countermeasures to deal with resistant
detainees including "invasion of personal space by female.,,33o Mr. Witsch explained that "[i]n a
lot of cases, it's uncomfortable for a male to have a female in their space. It could also be looked
at as uncomfortable having a female in front of an Arab... What this is is a form of pressure in

32l

Compare JPRA, Ex:ploitation ofCaptive with JPRA, Exploitation Drqft Plan.

323

JPRA, Exploitation ofCaptive.

Hearing to Receive Information Relating To The Treatment of Detainees, Senate Committee on Armed Services,
110th Congo (September 6,2(07) (Testimony of Joseph Witsch) at 12, 34 (hereinafter "Testimony of Joseph Witsch
(September 6, 2(07)").

324

m JPRA,

Exploitation ofCaptive.

326

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6, 2(07) at 16.

321

JPRA, Exploitation ofCaptive.

328

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6, 2(07) at 18.

329

Ibid. at 25.

JPRA, Counter Measures to Defeat al-Qa 'ida Resistance, presentation to GTMO personnel at Fort Bragg
(September 2(02) (hereinafter "JPRA, Counter A-!easures to Defeat al-Qa 'ida Resistance").

330

that situation.,,331 He testified that lPRA might have become aware that the invasion of the
personal space by a female might make an Arab detainee uncomfortable while conducting
· preparatIon
. lor
J!:
.. 332
researc h m
t h e trammg.
_ _ The presentation on countenneasures to defeat al Qaeda resistance also
explained that "[i]fthe prisoner believes that Americans are immoral barbarians and what he sees
counters those beliefs then his core beliefs have been shaken and he is more likely to cooperate..
. . If his core beliefs are reinforced by his treatment he is more likely to stick to his resistance.,,333
Mr. Witsch told the Committee that it was "hard to say" what the effect 0
would have on a detainee's resistance - whether it would make the detainee more or
less likely to cooperate. 334
(U) In his testimony to the Army IG, MAl Burney, the GTMO BSCT psychiatrist who
attended the training, stated that JPRA personnel at Fort Bragg, "described some of the stuffthat
they would do in SERE school as far as keeping people in some sort of solitary confinement for a
period of time" or "finding out what their fears were before they came so that they would try and
use those against them, whether it was fear of spiders, of the dark or whatever...,,335 An
interrogator from GTMO who attended the training also recalled a discussion about the use of
phobias. 336

11_ Members ofthe GTMO BSCT who attended the Fort Bragg training
recalled discussions with the JPRA instructors about how they administered physical
pressures. 337 MAJ Burney told the Committee that instructors talked about techniques the SERE
schools used to teach resistance to interrogation, such as walling, and exposing students to cold
until they shiver. 338 _ t o l d the Committee that hooding and hitting in a way that was not
injurious were both mentioned at Fort Bragg. 339 An interrogator from JTF -170 who attended the
training also recalled a discussion about the use of physical pressures. 340
(U) That same interrogator said that the instructors spoke about using existing procedures
at GTMO to enhance interrogations. 341 For example, the interrogator told the Committee that
there was a discussion with lPRA personnel that military working dogs, already present at

331

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,2(07) at 26.

332

Ibid. at 27.

333

JPRA, COWJter Measures to Defeat al-Qa 'ida Resistance.

334

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,2(07) at 30.

m Army IG, Interview of MAl Paul Burney (April 28, 2(06) at 14.
336

Committee staff interview of GTMO Interrogator (November 6, 2007).

337

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2(07) at 92.

338

Committee staff interview of MAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2007).

339

Committee staff interview of

340

Committee staff interview of GTMO Interrogator (November 6, 2007).

341

Ibid.

(September 12, 2(07).

GTMO for security, could enhance detainee exploitation. Similarly, the interrogator said that the
instructors pointed out that hoods, goggles, and ear muffs were already in use with detainees at
GTMO for security purposes, and that existing processes utilizing those techniques could also be
used to enhance interrogations. The interrogator also recalled requesting additional JPRA
training for GTMO personnel on the use of physical pressures.
(U) Neither LTC Banks nor any ofthe JPRA instructors from the Fort Bragg training
could recall if there were discussions of physical pressures. 342 LTC Banks told the Committee
that using physical pressures desiFed for students at SERE school in actual interrogations would
almost always be unproductive. 34 For example, he told the Committee that slapping a person
would harden their resistance.
(U) Despite the apparent instruction on physical pressures, MAJ Burney told the Army
IG that instructors at Fort Bragg believed that the techniques used in SERE training should not
be brought back for use at GTMO and that "interrogation tactics that rely on physical pressures
or torture, while they do get you information, do not tend to get you accurate information or
reliable information.,,344 In a written statement provided to the Committee, MAJ Burney
reiterated that point, stating that "[i]t was stressed time and time again that psychological
investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you
information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that
information is strongly likely to be false.,,34s

11_ During the Fort Bragg training, the GTMO personnel also discussed
conditions at GTMO that they felt were hampering intelligence collection efforts. In his after
action report summarizing the training, JPRA instructor and trainin Team Chief Jos h Witsch
described some of those conditions statin for exa Ie that
,346 Mr. Witsch also stated in his after action report that "[a] lot of interrogation
techniques used in the past are no longer effective against the individual detainees because they
have developed an awareness and countermeasures to deal with them.,,347 Mr. Witsch added that
some ofthe interrogators had become "frustrated over the controls placed on their ability to
extract actionable information," such as restrictions on bringing detainees together in a room to
confront inconsistencies or on interrogating detainees for "12-15-20 hours at a time.,,348 While
Mr. Witsch noted that rapport building had proved to be the most effective interrogation
technique in eliciting information and that the positive treatment of detainees at GTMO was
LTC Banks added that he was not present for all of the training sessions. Committee staff interview of LTC
Morgan Banks (June 15, 2007); Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 79; Testimony of Joseph Witsch
(September 4, 2007) at 99.

342

343

Committee staff interview of LTC Morgan Banks (June 15, 2007).

344

Army IG, Interview ofMAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 8.

345

Written statement ofMAJ Paul Burney (August 21,2007).

Memo from Joseph Witsch to Col Moulton, Col Atkins, Lt Col Baumgartner, Mr. Wirts, U.s. Army Special
Operations Command (USASOC), Requirement to Provide Exploitation Instruction (September 24, 2002).

346

347

Ibid.

348

Ibid.

having some effect, he stated that the positive effect appeared limited to the "younger,
.
inexperienced" detainees. ,,349

11_ In his after action report, Mr. Witsch expressed concerns about JPRA
involvement in GTMO operations, writing:
I highly recommend we continue to remain in an advisory role and not get directly
involved in the actual operations - GITMO in particular. We have no actual
experience in real world prisoner handling. The concepts we are most familiar
with relate to our past enemies and we have developed our Code of Conduct
procedures based on those experiences. Without actual experience with current
[Designated Unlawful Combatants] we are making the assumption that
procedures we use to exploit our personnel will be effective against the current
detainees. 350
_
A week later, Mr. Witsch prepared a follow up memo for Mr. Wirts, JPRA's
OSO chief, expressing concern about lPRA's involvement with detainee exploitation, stating:
What do we bring to the table? We are Code of Conduct instructors with a vast
amount of experience training highly intelligent, disciplined, and motivated DoD
personnel to resist captivity... We base our role-play laboratories on what we
know our former enemies have done to our personnel in captivity. It is based on
illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in the 1949 Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50
years...
Mr. Witsch continued:

I believe the techniques and tactics that we use in training have applicability.
What I am wrestling with is the implications of using these tactics as it relates to
current legal constraints, the totally different motivations of the detainees, and the
lack of direction of senior leadership within the [U.S. Government] on how to
uniformly treat detainees.
I think we are well within our sphere of influence if we stick to providing
methods to counter resistance trained [Designated Unlawful Combatants]. We are
out of our sphere when we begin to profess the proper ways to exploit these
detainees. We are now attempting to educate lower level personnel in DoD and
OGAs with concepts and principles that are somewhat foreign to them and while
it all sounds good they are not in a position nor do they have the depth of
knowledge in these matters to effect change and do it in reasonable safety.
The handling of [Designated Unlawful Combatants] is a screwed up mess and
everyone is scrambling to unscrew the mess ... If we want a more profound role in
this effort we need to sell our capabilities to the top level people in the USG and
349

Ibid.

3'0

Ibid.

not spend our time trying to motivate the operators at the lower levels to sway
their bosses. This is running the train backwards and that is a slow method to get
somewhere. There are a lot of people in the USG intelligence community that
still believe in the old paradigm and wonder just what we're doing in their
business. 351
_ T h e memo concluded with the warning, "[w]e don't have an established track
record in this type of activity and we would present an easy target for someone to point at as the
problem. The stakes are much higher for this than what you and I have done in any activity
before.,,352

Delegation ofSenior Government Lawyers VISits Guantanamo (U)

(U) On September 25, 2002, less than a week after GTMO personnel returned from the
training at Fort Bragg, Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the Vice President
David Addington, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, Acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo,
Assistant Attorney General ofthe Criminal Division Michael Chertoff, and other senior
administration officials travelled to Guantanamo Bay and were briefed on future plans for
detention facilities as well as on intelligence successes, failures, and problems at the ITF. 353

According to a trip report prepared by a Deputy StaffJudge Advocate at
SOOUTHCOM, MG Dunlavey held private conversations with Mr. Haynes and a few others and
briefed the entire group on a number of issues including "policy constraints" affecting
interrogations at the ITF. 354 For example, MG Dunlavey told the group that JTF-170 would
"like to take Koran away from some detainees - hold it as incentive" but that the issue was
355
undergoing a policy determination by SOUTHCOM.
The trip report noted that Mr. Haynes
"opined that ITF-170 should have the authority in place to make those calls, per POTUS order,"
adding that he "[t]hought ITF-170 would have more freedom to command.,,356 MG Dunlavey
told the Committee that he may have told the group during their visit that JTF-170 was working
on a request for authority to use additional interrogation techniques. 357 Mr. Haynes said he did
not recall discussing specific interrogation techniques or GTMO's work on a request for
authority to use additional interrogation techniques. 358
m_Memo from Joseph Witsch to Christopher Wirts, (U) Concerns withJPRA Involvement in Operation
Enduring Freedom Exploitation ofDetained Unlawful Combatants (October 1, 2002).
mIbid.
3~3 JTF-GTMO Distinguished Visitors Roster (September 27, 2002). Col Terrence Farrell,

Trip Report - DoD
General Counsel Visit to GTMO (September 27, 2002). While the September 27, 2002 trip report states that the
visit occurred on September 25 th, Jack Goldsmith, another senior official on the trip, recounts that the visit took
place on September 26, 2002. Goldsmith notes that Patrick Philbin, then-Chertoff Chief of Staff Alice Fisher, and
"several Pentagon lawyers" also went on the trip. The Terror Presiden2)' at 99-100.
3~4

Col. Terrence Farrell, Trip Report - DoD General Counsel Visit to GTMO (September 27,2002).

m Ibid.
356

Ibid.

m Committee staff interview of MG Michael Dunlavey (November 30, 2007).
3~8

Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes n (April 25, 2008) at 139-42.

JTF-170 BSCT Produces Interrogation Policy Memo (U)

(U) According to the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) at GTMO, LTC Diane Beaver, there
was discussion among senior staff at GTMO as to whether or not the ITF required explicit
authorization to use interrogation approaches that had not been taught to interrogators at the U.S.
Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. While some felt that JTF-170 already had
the authority to use additional interrogation techniques, MG Dunlavey directed his staff to draft a
request for new authorities to submit to SOUTHCOM for approval. 359
(U) The ITF-170 Director for Intelligence, LTC Jerald Phifer, told the Committee that
MG Dunlavey wanted to get new techniques on the table and that MG Dunlavey pressured him
to draft a memo requesting additional techniques. 36o LTC Phifer asked the BSCT to draft an
interrogation policy that could be formally submitted up the chain of command for review. 361
According to MAJ Burney, the BSCT psychiatrist, "by early October there was increasing
pressure to get 'tougher' with detainee interrogations but nobody was quite willing to define
what 'tougher' meant.,,362 MAJ Burney added that there was "a lot ofpressure to use more
coercive techniques" and that if the interrogation policy memo that LTC Phifer had asked him to
write did not contain coercive techniques, then it "wasn't going to go very far.,,363
(U) According to MAJ Burney, he and~wrote a memo of suggested detention
MAJ Burney told the Committee that
and interrogation policies in the course of an evening.
some ofthe interrogation approaches identified in the memo came from their JPRA training in
the BSCT
Fort Bragg and other approaches were simply made up by the BSCT. 365 _
psychologist, also told the Committee that the BSCT used information from the JPRA training at
Fort Bragg to draft the memo. 366

The BSCT memo, dated October 2, 2002, began:

3'9

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07).

360

Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27,2007).

361

Written statement ofMAJ Paul Burney (August 21,2007).

362

Ibid.

363

Army IG, Interview ofMA! Paul Burney (Apri128, 2006) at 11.

364

Ibid.

Committee staff interview ofMAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007). However, in testimony to the Army IG, MAl
Burney said he did not know whether the memo incorpomted tactics from the Fort Bragg training. Army!G,
Interview of MAl Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at II.

36'

366

Committee staff interview o~ (September 12, 2007).

_
The memo identified a number of conditions at GTMO that the BSCT judged to
be hindering intelligence collection and stated:

The October 2, 2002 memo proposed three categories of interrogation techniques
_
''for use in the interrogation booth to develop rapport, promote cooperation, and counter
resistance.,,369 Category I techniques included incentives and "mildly adverse approaches" such
as telling a detainee that he was going to be at GTMO forever unless he cooperated. 370 The
memorandum stated that an interrogator should be able to ascertain whether a detainee is being
cooperative by the end ofthe initial interrogation and said that if Category I approaches failed to
induce cooperation, the interrogator could request approval for Category II approaches. 371
_
Category II techniques were designed for 'lligh priority" detainees, defined in the
memo as "any detainee suspected of having significant information relative to the security ofthe
United States.,,372 Category II techniques included stress positions; the use of isolation for up to
30 days (with the possibility of additional 30 day periods, if authorized by the Chief
Interrogator); depriving a detainee offood for up to 12 hours (or as long as the interrogator goes
without food during an interrogation); the use of back-to-back 20 hour interrogations once per
week; removal of all comfort items including religious items; forced groorninfi; handcuffmg a
detainee; and placing a hood on a detainee during questioning or movement. 3

36~ MAl Paul Burney and
Memorandum for Record, Counter-resistance Strategies (October
2,2002) at 1 (hereinafter "BSCT, Counter-resistance Strategies").
368

Ibid. at 2.

369

Ibid.

370

Ibid.

371

Ibid.

312

Ibid.

Ibid. at 2-3. There is evidence that stress positions were used at GTMO prior to the BSCT memo. Lt. Col.
Ronald Buikema, who served at Guantanamo from January 2001 until Jtme 2001 as the ITF-170 J2 and
Commanding Officer of the Joint Interagency Interrogation Facility (JIIF) indicated in his response ~o a Navy IG
questionnaire that stress positions were used in some interrogations at GTMO. Email from Lt. Col. Ron Buikema to
Victoria Gnibus (July 21,2004).

373

_
The memo reserved Category III techniques "ONLY for detainees that have·
evidenced advanced resistance and are suspected of having significant infonnation pertinent to
national security.,,374 Category III techniques included the daily use of20 hour interrogations;
the use of strict isolation without the right of visitation by treating medical professionals or the
International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC); the use of food restriction for 24 hours once a
week; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee he might experience a painful or
fatal outcome; non-injurious physical consequences; removal of clothing; and exposure to cold
weather or water until such time as the detainee began to shiver. 375
_
In addition to suggesting interrogation techniques, the BSCT memo made
recommendations for the treatment of detainees in the cell blocks. Specifically, it proposed that
resistant detainees might be limited to four hours of sleep a day; that they be deprived of comfort
items such as sheets, blankets, mattresses, washcloths; and that interrogators control access to all
detainees' Korans. 376 The BSCT memo described using fans and generators to create white
noise as a fonn of psychological pressure and advocated that "all aspects ofthe [detention]
environment should enhance capture shock, dislocate expectations, foster dependence, and
support exploitation to the fullest extent possible.,,377

11_

MAl Burney a n d _ t o l d the Committee that they were not
comfortable with the memo they were asked to produce, and therefore included a statement in
the memo reflecting their concerns about the techniques, including concerns about the "long term
physical and/or mental impact ofthe techniques.,,378 They wrote:

Experts in the field of interrogation indicate the most effective interrogation
strategy is a rapport-building approach. Interrogation techniques that rely on
physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and
create an increased level of resistance...There is no evidence that the level offear
or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the
volume or quality of information obtained. . .The interrogation tools outlined
could affect the short term and/or long term physicaland/or mental health of the
detainee. Physical and/or emotional hann from the above techniques may emerge
months or even years after their use. It is impossible to determine if a particular
strategy will cause irreversible hann if employed. . .Individuals employing
Category II or Category III interrogation techniques must be thoroughly trained ..
. carefully selected, to include a mental health screening (such screenings are SOP
for SERE and other Special Operations personnel). 379

374

BSCT, Counter-resistance Strategies at 3 (emphasis in original).

m Ibid.
376

Ibid. at 4.

J77

Ibid. at 4-5.

Committee staff interview of MAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2007); Committee staff interview o~
(September 13, 2007).

378

379

BSCT, Counter-resistance Strategies at 6.

(U) The BSCT provided a copy oftheir memo to LTC Banks at U.S. Anny Special
Operations Command (USASOC), who had helped organize their JPRA training. Upon
reviewing the memo, LTC Banks praised the BSCT for their "great job" on the memo, but also
raised concerns about the suggested use of physical pressures in interrogation, noting that
physical pressures are used with students in SERE school to increase their resistance to
interrogation, not break. it down. 380
(U) LTC Banks wrote:

II _

The use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of
potential negative side effects... When individuals are gradually exposed to
increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder. That
is one of the reasons we use it [in SERE school] - to increase the resistance
posture of our soldiers. If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain,
they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the
amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the
information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the
infonnation because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain.
Now, there are certain exceptions, like with all generalizations, but they are not
common. Bottom line: The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will
increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The
likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in
a detainee is very high...

II _

It is important to remember that SERE instructors use these
techniques [physical pressures] because they are effective at increasing resistance.
. . Because of the danger involved, very few SERE instructors are allowed to
actually use physical pressures...everything that is occurring [in SERE school] is
very carefully monitored and paced... Even with all these safeguards, injuries
and accidents do happen. The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially.

(U) My strong recommendation is that you do not use physical pressures ...[If
GTMO does decide to use them] you are taking a substantial risk, with very
limited potential benefit. 381

CIA Lawyer Advises GTMO on Interrogations (U)

(U) On October 2, 2002, the GTMO Staff Judge Advocate LTC Diane Beaver convened a
meeting to discuss the BSCT memo. Minutes from that meeting reflect the attendance of ITF170 personnel and the then-chief counsel to the CIA's CounterTerrorist Center Jonathan
Fredman. 382

380

Email from LTC Morgan Banks to MAl Paul Burney an~(October 2, 2002).

381

Ibid.

382

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 2. The meeting minutes stated that questions and comments

from the meeting were paraphrased.

(U) Mr. Fredman's visit took place just a week after the acting CIA General Counsel

John Rizzo and DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes's September 25,2002 visit to GTMO. Mr.
Haynes did not recall discussing with Mr. Rizzo during their visit the possibility of having a CIA
lawyer travel to GTMO to talk to DoD personnel there. 383 Mr. Haynes said he later found out in
a discussion with Mr. Rizzo that a CIA lawyer had gone to GTMO and discussed legal
authorities applicable to interrogations, but said he could not recall when he first learned ofthat
CIA lawyer's visit.
(U) While LTC Beaver could not recall what she or others said, the minutes ofthe

October 2, 2002 meeting indicate that it began with a briefing by the BSCT on the JPRA training
at Fort Bragg. 384 The BSCT briefer told the group that rapport building and the "friendly
approach" were proven methods to overcome resistance, while "fear based approaches" were
''unreliable'' and "ineffective in ahnost all cases.,,385 According to the meeting minutes,
however, the BSCT did report that psychological stressors such as sleep deprivation, withholding
food, isolation, and loss oftime were "extremely effective." 386 The BSCT also identified "campwide, environmental strategies designed to disrupt cohesion and communication among
detainees" as potentially helpful to improve the effectiveness of interro§ations and explained that
the detention "environment should foster dependence and compliance." 87
(U) Despite the BSCT comment on the effectiveness of rapport building, the meeting

minutes reflect little discussion ofthat approach. In fact, according to the meeting minutes, the
GTMO Director for Intelligence LTC Jerald Phifer questioned the BSCT assessment, stating that
"harsh tec~d on our service members have worked and will work on some, what about
those?,,388 _ _ responded that force was "risky, and may be ineffective.,,389
Nevertheless, the remainder ofthe meeting appears to have revolved around a discussion of
aggressive interrogation techniques and how to obtain the approval to use them.
(U) Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief David Becker noted at the meeting that
there were many reports about sleep deprivation used at Bagram in Afghanistan. 390 According to
the meeting minutes, LTC Beaver agreed but stated that "officially it is not happening.,,391
Nevertheless, LTC Beaver suggested that sleep deprivation could be used on GTMO detainees
''with approval.,,392 The group also discussed ways to manage the detainees' sleep cycles, i.e., by
383

Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 145-47.

384

SASC Hearing (June 17,2008); Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 3.

38'

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 3.

386

Ibid.

387

Ibid.

388

Ibid.

389

Ibid. at 2.

390

Ibid

391 Ibid. at 3. It is unclear how and when JTF-170 personnel became aware of the use of sleep deprivation at
Bagram, though LIC Beaver told the Committee that she had seen a version of a standard operating procedure for
interrogations in use at Bagram on a classified DoD internet system.
392

Ibid.

letting the detainee rest ''just long enough to fall asleep and wake him up about every thirty
minutes and tell him it's time to prayagain.,,393
(U) According to the meeting minutes, LTC Beaver suggested that the IfF might "need
to curb the harsher operations while [the International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC;~ is
around," and that it would be "better not to expose them to any controversial techniques."
LTC Beaver explained that "[t]he ICRC is a serious concern. They will be in and out,
scrutinizing our operations, unless they are displeased and decide to protest and leave. This
would draw a lot of negative attention.,,395 The minutes reflect that the CIA lawyer added his
view:

In the past when the ICRC has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD
has 'moved' them away from the attention of the ICRC. Upon questioning from
the ICRC about their whereabouts, the DOD's response has repeatedly been that
the detainee merited no status under the Geneva Convention. 396
(U) At the meeting, the minutes reflect that CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman also discussed
whether or not the techniques in the BSCT memo complied with applicable legal standards. Mr.
Fredman explained:

Under the Torture Convention, torture has been prohibited by international law,
but the language of the statutes is written vaguely. Severe mental and physical
pain is prohibited. The mental part is explained as poorly as the physical. Severe
physical pain [is] described as anything causing pennanent damage to major
organs or body parts. Mental torture [is] described as anything leading to
permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality. It is basically subject
to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong. So far the techniques
we have addressed have not proven to produce these types of results, which in a
way challenges what the BSCT paper says about not being able to prove whether
these techniques will lead to pennanent damage. Everything in the BSCT
[memo] is legal from a civilian standpoint. 397
(U) According to the minutes, when the participants of the meeting discussed whether or
not to videotape the "aggressive sessions or interro&ations," Mr. Fredman said that videotaping
of "even totally legal techniques will look 'ugly. ,,,3 8 Mr. Becker, who agreed with the CIA
lawyer's assessment, added that "videotapes are subject to too much scrutiny in court." 399
393

Ibid. at 5.

394

Ibid. at 3.

395

Ibid.

396

Ibid.

According to the meeting minutes, the CIA lawyer added "The Torture Convention prohibits torture and cruel,
inhumane and degrading treatment. The US did not sign up to the second part, because of the 8th amendment ..
.That gives us more license to use more controversial techniques." Ibid.

397

398

Ibid. at 5.

399

Ibid. at 3.

(U) When an attendee at the meeting mentioned that law enforcement agents (presumably
referring to CITF and FBI) had concerns about the use of aggressive tactics, the minutes reflect
that Mr. Fredman responded that "[w]hen CIA has wanted to use more aggressive techniques in
the past, the FBI has pulled their personnel from theatre. In those rare instances, aggressive
techniques have proven very helpful.,,4°O LTC Beaver added that there was no legal reason why
law enforcement personnel could not participate in those operations. 401
(U) While LTC Beaver testified in 2008 that she was aware that SERE training was not

designed for offensive use with detainees, the minutes of the October 2,2002 meeting reflect that
she nevertheless asked about use ofthe "wet towel" technique in SERE school. 402 The CIA
lawyer replied:
If a well-trained individual is used to perfonn this technique it can feel like you're
drowning. The lymphatic system will react as if you're suffocating, but your
body will not cease to function. It is very effective to identify phobias and use
them (i.e., insects, snakes, claustrophobia). The level of resistance is directly
related to person's experience. 403
(U) According to the meeting minutes, ICE Chief David Becker asked whether GTMO

could get blanket approval for the use of techniques or whether techniques would be approved on
a case-by-case basis. 404 Mr. Fredman responded that the "CIA makes the call internally on most
ofthe techniques found in the BSCT" memo and referenced in their meeting, but that
"significantly harsh techniques are approved through the DOl,,405 As to whether Geneva
Conventions would apply, Mr. Fredman noted that the "CIA rallied for it not to.,,406
(U) The meeting minutes also reflect Mr. Fredman thoughts on other interrogation
techniques, such as threats of death. Mr. Fredman noted that such threats "should be handled on
a case by case basis. Mock executions don't work as well as friendly ~proaches, like letting
someone write a letter home, or providing them with an extra book.,;40

400

Ibid.

401

Ibid.

402

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08); BSCT, Counter-resistance Strategies at 4.

403

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 4. LTC Beaver said that she had learned about the wet towel
technique from a Navy doctor who had been assigned to the Hospital at Guantanamo and who described to her its
use at the Navy SERE school. It is unclear, however, to whom LTC Beaver is referring. The Committee
interviewed a Navy Lieutenant Commander who was deployed to GTMO and who had previously worked at the
Navy SERE school at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine. The Lieutenant Commander told the Committee
that he discussed with ITF-GTMO staff physical pressures used to teach students at SERE school how to resist
interrogations. However, the Lieutenant Commander was not deployed to GTMO until November 2002.
Committee staff interview of LTC ~II, 2007); see Committee staff interview o~
(August 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) ; _ Travel voucher.
404

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 4.

40'

Ibid.

406

Ibid.

407

Ibid. at 3.

(U) Weeks later, CITF Deputy Commander Mark Fallon wrote an email to CITF's Chief
Legal Counsel Major Sam McCahon regarding the meeting minutes:
Quotes from LTC Beaver regarding things that are not being reported give the
appearance of impropriety. Other comments like "It is basically subject to
perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong" and "Any of the
teclmiques that lie on the harshest end of the spectrum must be performed by a
highly trained individual. Medical personnel should be present to treat any
possible accidents." Seem to stretch beyond the bounds of legal propriety. Talk
of "wet towel treatment" which results in the lymphatic gland reacting as if you
are suffocating, would in my opinion; shock the conscience of any legal body
looking at using the results of the interrogations or possibly even the
interrogators. Someone needs to be considering how history will look back at
thiS. 408

The October 2, 2002 meeting minutes indicated that the group discussed Mohammed
at Khatani, a high value detainee suspected of being connected to the September 11, 2001
attacks. A week before the meeting, JTF-170 had assumed the lead on Khatani's
interrogation. 409 By the October 2, 2002 meeting, JTF-170 had already developed an aggressive
interrogation plan for Khatani.
.
IITwo days after the meeting, BSCT psychiatrist MAl Paul Burney sent an email to
LTC Banks, stating that "persons here at this operation are still interested in pursuing the
potential use of more aversive interrogation teclmiques ... Were more aversive teclmiques
approved for use in the future by appropriate people, the operation would like to have a few task
force personnel specifically trained in various techniques.,,410 MAl Burney asked whether LTC
Banks knew "where task force personnel could go to receive such training" and whether he knew
of"any consultants who could assist ifany ofthese measures are eventually approved.,,411
_ LTC Banks replied "I do not envy you. I suspect I know where this is coming from.
The answer is no, I do not know of anyone who could provide that training ... The training that
SERE instructors receive is designed to simulate that of a foreign power, and to do so in a
manner that encourages resistance among the students. I do not believe that traininf
interrogators to use what SERE instructors use would be particularly productive.,,41

DoD Takes Lead on the Interrogation ofMohammed al Khatani (U)

_ _ According to the Department of Defense, Pakistani authorities captured
Mohammed al Khatani along the Pakistani-Afghanistan border on December 15, 2001 and

408

Email from Mark Fallon to MAl Sam McCahon et a1. (October 28, 2002).

LTG Joseph Jnge, DEPSECDEF Inquiry Regarding Location ofInte"ogation Planfor ISN 063 (August
24, 2006) at 5 (hereinafter "Jnge Report'').

409 _

410

Email from MAJ Paul Burney to LTC Morgan Banks (October 4, 2002).

411

Ibid.

412

Email from LTC Morgan Banks to MAl Paul Burney (October 4, 2002).

413
turned him over to U.S. forces on December 26, 2001.
He was transferred to Guantanamo
Bay on February 13,2002, where he was initially interrogated by JTF·170, CITF and FBI
personnel at Camp X-Ray.
_ _ In the summer of2002, Khatani was identified as a possible "twentieth
hijacker" ofthe September 11 attacks. 414 From July 27,2002 until September 19,2002, Khatani
was questioned by the FBI. 415 During this period, Khatani was held at the recently built Camp
Delta until August 8,2002 when he was transferred to the Naval Brig at Guantanamo Bay.416
While he was in FBI custody, JTF-170 began drafting an interrogation plan for Khatani.
(U) On September 23, 2002, the CITF Special Agent in Charge sent a memorandum to
CITF's Deputy Commander raising concerns about JTF-170's proposed interrogation plan for
Khatani. The memo stated:
DoD Intelligence personnel contacted FBI [Supervisory Special Agent] in order to
conduct an interview of a detainee assigned to the FBI. The DoD personnel
indicated that they intend to employ the following interrogation techniques: drive
the hooded detainee around the island to disorient him, disrobe him to his
underwear, have an interrogator with an Egyptian accent (it is known among the
detainees that Egyptians are aggressive interrogators and commonly use coercion,
to include maiming) ...
As a law enforcement agency, CITF is clearly prohibited from participating in
these techniques and we also do not want to tum a deaf ear when we learn of
these issues...417

Memo from COL John Hadis (ITF-GTMO Chief of Stafl) to SOUTHCOM Chief of Staff (March 14, 2005),
attached as Tab 1 to Inge Report (August 24, 2006).

413

Khatani was identified as a possible twentieth highjacker after it was determined that he had tried to enter the
U.S. in August 2001 but was detained at the Orlando, Florida airport and later deported. When Khatani arrived at
the Orlando airport. Mohammed .Atta was waiting. JTF-GTMO, Analyst Support Summary (March 18, 2(03),
attached as Tab 22 to Inge Report (August 24, 2006).
414

415

Inge Report at 5.

Memo from COL John Hadis (ITF-GTMO Chief of Stafl) to SOUTHCOM Chief of Staff (March 14, 2005),
attached as Tab 1 to Inge Report (August 24, 2006); Inge Report at 5.

416

417

Memo from J.K. Sieber (CITF SAC) to CITF Deputy Commander, CITF Operations Officer, CITF SJA, DOD

Inte"ogation Techniques Issue (September 23, 2002).
418

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

(U) While MG Dunlavey's memo stated that the request had "been reviewed by my Staff
Judge Advocate and determined to be legally sufficienl,"the SJA, LTC Diane Beaver, told the
Committee that she had not been consulted on the interrogation plan and did not recall reviewing
the memo or providing the Commander with guidance regarding the legal sufficiency of the
request. 42S Major General Dunlavey said that he did not recall whether or not he personally
consulted with LTC Beaver, that the letter would likely have been drafted by his Director for
Intelligence, LTC Jerald Phifer, and that it was possible that the statement in the letter that LTC
Beaver had been consulted was based on a representation by his staff. 426

The memo was provided to the Committee as an appendix to the AR-15-6 Report completed by Lieutenant
General Randall Schmidt and Brigadier General John T. Furlow into FBI allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay
(hereinafter "Schmidt-Furlow Report''). The memo is unsigned but contains a handwritten notation "/liisigned on 1
Oct 02/111." Committee staff requested the Department of Defense provide a signed copy or advise the Committee of
any reason why the Committee should not rely on the document. The Department provided neither.

419

Memo from MG Michael Dunlavey to ITF-160 Commander, Inte"ogation Plan for ISN 063 (October 1, 2002),
attached as exhibit 40 to Schmidt-Furlow Report.
421 Ibid.
420

422

Ibid.

423

Ibid.

424

Ibid.

Ibid.; Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (October 11, 2007); see also Memo from lK. Sieber
(CITF SAC) to CITF Deputy Commander, CITF Operations Officer, CITF SJA, DOD Interrogation Techniques
Issue (September 23, 2002) ("the JTF 170 SJA had not been briefed on the plan prior to her contact with the FBI
SSA When she learned of the plan, she sought guidance from up her chain of command and also sought guidance
from DOD legal and other intelligence agencies. She wants to ensure that even if these techniques are not legally
objectionable, her chain of command is aware that these types of techniques are being utilized and that the personnel
on the ground are properly trained to conduct these techniques.")
42'

426

Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30,2007).

IIFrom October 2 until October 10,2002, ITF-170 personnel interrogated Khatani.
According to multiple witness accounts, on or about October 5,2002, military working dogs
were brought into the room where Khatani was being interrogated. 427 A summarized statement
oftestimony provided by one ofthe FBI agents present at the time indicated that the FBI
objected to the use of dogs and raised those objections to Mr. Becker, the ITF-170 ICE Chief. 428
In testimony to the Army 10, Mr. Becker acknowledged that he permitted the military working
dog to enter the interrogation in order to raise the detainee's stress level. 429

II Mr. Becker told the Committee that he had authorized dogs entering the interrogation
room on two occasions and that the dog barked but was not pennitted to place its paws on
Khatani. 43o ~fr. Becker also told the Committee that LTC Phifer provided verbal authority for
the dogs to be used in this manner. LTC Phifer recalled discussing dogs with Mr. Becker as a
teclmique because Arabs "saw dogs as a dirty animal and they didn't like them," not because
they should be "used as a fear factor.,,431 LTC Phifer told the Army 10, however, that Mr.
Becker never told him that he had approved the use of a dog during the Khatani interrogation.
However, in written answers to questions posed by Vice Admiral Church, LTC Phifer stated that
dogs were used in the Khatani interrogation and that "[w]e would bring the dog around to within
10 feet [of Khatani] and he would be somewhat Ulmerved by it. We did it to keep him off
balance as well as to enhance security:.432 Major General Dunlavey said that he did not recall
being aware that a dog was used in the interrogation of Khatani. 433
In an October 8,2002 email to his colleague, an FBI agent described ITF170's interrogation of Khatani, stating that DoD had tried "sleep deprivation," "loud music,
bright lights, and 'body placement discomfort,' all with negative results" and that DoD
434
Mr. Becker told the Committee that the
interrogators planned to stop the interrogation.
interrogation plan did not work and that ITF-170 ceased the interrogation after approximately a
week and moved Khatani back to the Navy brig. 435

Summarized witness statement of David Becker (March 3, 2005), exhibit 21 to Schmidt-Furlow Report;
summarized witness statement of ENS Mary Travers (February 23,2005), exhibit 33 to Schmidt-Furlow Report;
summarized witness statement of Agent Robert Morton (January 20, 2005), exhibit 36 to Schmidt-Furlow Report;
summarized witness statement of Agent Charles Dorsey (January 20,2005), exhibit 41 to Schmidt-Furlow Report.
427

428 Summarized witness statement of Agent Charles Dorsey (January 20, 2005), exhibit 41 to Schmidt-Furlow
Report.
429

Army IG, Interview of David Becker (September 20,2005) at 30.

430

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

431

Army IG, Interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (March 16, 2006) at 13.

Responses of LTC Jerald Phifer to questionnaire ofVADM Church (July 16,2004). It is not clear from those
written answers whether LTC Phifer was referring to the use of dogs in JTF-170's October 2002 interrogation of
Khatani or in the subsequent interrogation of Khat ani that began in late November.
432

433

Committee staff interview of Major General Michael Dunlavey (November 30, 2007).

434

Email from FBI Special Agent to FBI Special Agent (October 8, 2002).

43~ Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

(U) Another FBI agent reflected upon the failed interrogation in his own email of October

8, 2002, observing that "I think we should consider leaving him alone, let him get healthy again
and do something 'different. ",436

IV.

GTMO Seeks Authority to Use Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U)
A.

GTMO Requests Counter-Resistance Techniques Influenced by SERE (U)

(U) On October 11, 2002, just days after the JTF-170 moved Khatani back to the Navy
Brig and shortly after meeting with the ChiefCounsel ofthe CIA's CounterTerrorist Center
Jonathan Fredman, LTC Phifer submitted a memorandum to ITF-170 Commander MG Dunlavey
requesting approval to use "counter-resistance" interrogation techniques. 437 LTC Phifer's
memo was largely drawn from the October 2, 2002 memorandum that the GTMO Behavioral
Science Consultation Team (BSCT) had written upon their return from the JPRA training at Fort
Bragg. 438 The memo requested approval for three categories of progressively more aggressive
interrogation techniques, many of which were similar to techniques used at SERE schools to
increase U.S. soldiers' resistance to illegal enemy interrogation. 439
(U) Ofthe three categories of proposed techniques, those in Category I were the least
aggressive. Category I proposed yelling at the detainee and using certain "techniques of
deception," such as using multiple interrogators or having an interrogator "identifY himself as a
citizen of a foreign nation or as an interrogator from a country with a reputation for harsh
treatment of detainees. ,,4040
(U) The proposed Category II techniques were more aggressive and included several
techniques similar to those used in SERE schools, such as stress positions, isolation, deprivation
oflight and auditory stimuli, using a hood during transport and questioning, removal of clothing,
and using detainees' individual phobias to induce stress. 441

An August 19,2002 email from LTC Beaver reflected discussions among JTF-170
staff about stress positions, which she said resulted in an agreed upon policy of "no stress

436

Email from FBI Special Agent to FBI Special Agent (October 8, 2(02).

Memo from LTC Jerald Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval ofCounter-Resistance Strategies
(October II, 2(02) (hereinafter LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval ofCounter-Resistance

437

Strategies').
MAl Burney told the Army IG that the October II, 2002 memo "wasn't the exact same document that we had
written but the general structure and overall organization-a lot of the things did remain intact from our original
brainstorm to what was eventually requested." Army IG, Interview of MAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2(07) at 11.

438

The October 11 memo also stated that "current guidelines for interrogation procedures at GTMO limit the ability
of interrogators to counter advanced resistance." LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, RequestforApproval of

439

Counter-Resistance Strategies".
440

Ibid

Additional Category II techniques included use of falsified documents or reports, interrogating the detainee in an
environment other than the standard interrogation booth, use of 20 hour interrogations, removal of all comfort items
(including religious items), switching the detainee from hot rations to MREs, and forced grooming. Ibid

441

positions" at GTMO. 442 When asked how stress positions came to be included in LTC Phifer's
memo, given the agreement referenced in her earlier email, LTC Beaver said that she did not
know, but added that LTC Phifer later advocated for their use. 443 LTC Beaver said that she
relied on Mr. Becker and LTC Phifer to decide which techniques to put in the memo and that she
never commented or changed their drafts. 444
(U) The proposed Category III techniques in the October 11, 2002 request were the most
aggressive and included the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or
severely painful consequences were imminent for him and/or his family; exposure to cold
weather or water; the use ofa wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of
suffocation; and the use of mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the
chest with the fInger, and light pushing. 44S According to the October 11,2002 memo, Category
III techniques "and other aversive techniques, such as those used in u.s. military resistance
training or by other U.S. government agencies" would be utilized to interrogate "exceptionally
resistant detainees," which LTC Phifer estimated as "less than 3%" of the detainees held at
GTMO. 446
(U) Two ofthe Category III techniques in LTC Phifer's memo - the use of phobias and
the use ofthe wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation - were not
derived from the October 2,2002 BSCT memo. 447 CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman, however, had
reportedly discussed both ofthese techniques during his October 2, 2002 meeting with GTMO
personnel, noting that the use ofphobias was "very effective" and that the use ofthe "wet towel
technique" makes a body react as is ifit's suffocating. 448 Mr. Becker told the Committee that he
(the ICE Chief) may have recommended adding those two techniques to the request for
authority. 449
4So

(U) LTC Phifer said that he drafted his memo with Mr. Becker.
Mr. Becker, however,
told the Committee that he was provided a draft only after it was nearly complete. He said that
Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, Review ofDepartment ofDefense Detention Operations and Detainee
Inte"ogation Techniques (March 7,2005) (hereinafter "Church Reporfj at 109 (citing email from LTC Beaver

442

(August 19, 2002)).
443 LTC Beaver told the Committee that LTC Phifer advocated the use of stress positions in the interrogation of
Mohammed al Khatani (discussed below). Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9,2007).

444

Ibid.

44'

LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval ofCounter-Resistance Strategies.

446

Ibid.

447 The use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning appears to describe
waterboarding. The Navy is the only service that used waterboarding in SERE training. which it ceased in
November 2007.

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 5 (The CTC Chief Counsel explained that if a "well-trained
individual is used to perform" the "wet-towel technique," it can "feel like you're drowning. The lymphatic system
will react as if you're suffocating but your body will not cease to function.")
448

449

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

4'0

Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007).

he thought the techniques memo was "stupid," though he did not share his view with LTC Phifer
at the time. 451 LTC Phifer told the Committee that he was uncomfortable with the idea of using
some ofthe techniques in his memo but that MG Dunlavey pressured him to fmish the request. 452

GTMO StaffJudge Advocate Conducts "Legal Review ofAggressive
Interrogation Techniques" (U)

(U) The October 11, 2002 techniques memo was accompanied by a cover memo and
legal briefwritten by GTMO's Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) LTC Diane Beaver. The cover
memo stated simply that ''the proposed strategies do not violate applicable federal law.,,453
(U) LTC Beaver told the Committee that she drafted the legal brief with her staff over the
course of the 2002 Columbus Day weekend. 454 She told the Committee that she had not seen
either ofthe legal memoranda produced by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel on
August 1, 2002 and that she did not receive input on the legal brief from anyone outside of
GTMO. The minutes ofthe October 2, 2002 meeting with CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman,
however, reflect that LTC Beaver was present when he discussed the Torture Convention (and
the federal law implementing the treaty). In that discussion, Mr. Fredman described "severe
physical pain" as "anything causing permanent damage to major organs or body partS.,,455 The
idea that "severe physical pain" constituting torture had to rise to the level of "organ failure,
impainnent of bodily functions or even death" had been discussed in the OLC legal memo of
August 1 2002, known as the First Bybee memo. 456
(U) LTC Beaver began her analysis ofthe "aggressive" techniques by stating that the
"detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay ... are not protected by the Geneva
Conventions.'.457 LTC Beaver stated that the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense "had not
adopted specific guidelines regarding interrogation techniques for detainee operations at GTMO"
and she dismissed the longstanding guidance on interrogation of detainees contained in the Army
Field Manual (FM) 34-52 as not binding. 458

m Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).
m Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007).
453

Memo from LTC Diane Beaver for Commander, Joint Task Force 170, Legal Review ofAggressive Interrogation

Techniques (October 11, 2002).
454

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2007).

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 3.

456

Memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Standards of

Conductfor Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (August 1, 2002).
457 Memo from LTC Diane Beaver for Commander, Joint Task Force 170, Legal Briefon Proposed CounterResistance Strategies (October II, 2002) (hereinafter" LTC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance
Strategies").

The SJA concluded that because the techniques in the Army FM 34-52 are "constrained by, and conform to the
Geneva Conventions and applicable international law," and that the Geneva Conventions do not apply as a matter of
law, the Field Manual was "not binding." See LTC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies
at 1.
458

(U) In her memo, LTC Beaver stated that U. S. obligations under the Convention Against
Torture restricted only those cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts that were also prohibited by the
"current standard articulated in the Eighth Amendment" against "cruel and unusual
punishment.,,459 The memo concluded that the proposed interrogation techniques would be
consistent with the Eighth Amendment standard so long as any force used could "plausibly have
been thought necessary ... to achieve a legitimate governmental objective and it was applied in a
good faith effort and not maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.,,460
(U) LTC Beaver also concluded that the proposed interrogation techniques would not
violate the federal anti-torture statute so long as they were not specifically intended to cause
severe physical pain or suffering or prolonged mental hann. LTC Beaver conducted her analysis
with the "assum[ption] that severe physical pain [would not be] inflicted" and "absent any
evidence that any ofthese strategies [would] in fact cause prolonged and long lasting mental
hann.,,461 LTC Beaver told the Committee that she did not conduct any research to determine
whether the use of the techniques described in the accompanying request for authority would, in
fact, result in long-term mental hann. 462

11_ The October 2, 2002 BSCT memo, however, had specifically cautioned that
the techniques "could affect the short term and/or long term physical and/or mental health ofthe
detainee ... [and that] physical and/or emotional harm from the ... techniques may emerge
months or even years after their use.,,463
(U) LTC Beaver also found that some ofthe proposed tactics would constitute a "per se
violation" ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article that prohibits military
personnel from committing assault, and could violate the Article that prohibits military personnel
from communicating a threat.464 As a result, LTC Beaver said it would be "advisable to have
permission or immunity in advance from the convening authority for military members utilizing
these methods.,,46s In a November 4,2002 letter to the Joint StaffJ-5, the Marine Corps
commented on the SJA's recommendation to convey "permission or immunity in advance,"
noting that "[w]e are unaware of any authority that would allow a convening authority to give
'permission or immunity' in advance to commit a criminal violation.,,466 Likewise, military
lawyers from the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School later said that LTC
Beaver's "proposal to immunize interrogators, given that a number ofthe proposed techniques in

459

LIC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies at 2.

460

Ibid. at 5.

461

Ibid.

462

Committee staff interview ofLIC Diane Beaver (November 9,2007).

463

BSCI, Counter-Resistance Strategies (October 2, 2002).

464

LIC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies at 5.

465

Ibid.

466 Memo from Marine Corps Service Plarmer to Director, J-5, The Joint Staff, Counter-Resistance Techniques
(November 4, 2002) see also Section IV D, infra.

issue constituted violations of the UCMJ, was not only unprecedented, but lacked any basis in
law.,,467
(U) Based on her legal review, LTC Beaver recommended that the "proposed methods of
interrogation be approved," but that interrogators be trained to use the methods and that
"interrogations involving category II and III methods" undergo a legal, medical, behavioral
science, and intelligence review prior to commencement.468
(U) LTC Beaver told the Committee that she called the SOUTHCOM Staff Judge
Advocate COL Manny Supervielle, like?, on Sunday, October 10, 2002 and sent SOUTHCOM a
draft of the legal memo that same day.46 She said that she told COL Supervielle that she "really
needed some help" but that she received no comments from SOUTHCOM prior to submitting the
final memo the next day. 470 LTC Beaver said that she also talked to the Legal Counsel to the
Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff CAPT Jane Dalton and asked for her help, but was told that
she should talk to COL Supervielle. 471 CAPT Dalton said that she did not recall that
conversation with LTC Beaver.472 LTC Beaver also told the Committee that MG Dunlavey did
not comment on drafts of the memo and that she did not discuss it with him after it was
completed. 473
C

Chain ofCommand Considers the Requestfor Interrogation Techniques as
CITF and FBI Raise Objections (U)

(U) On October 11, 2002, MG Dunlavey submitted LTC Phifer's memo and LTC
Beaver's legal analysis to General James Hill, the Commander ofthe United States Southern
Command (SOUfHCOM). He also sent his own memo requesting approval to use the
interrogation techniques. 474 MG Dunlavey wrote:

I am fully aware of the techniques currently employed to gain valuable
intelligence in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Although these
techniques have resulted in significant exploitable intelligence, the same methods
have become less effective over time. I believe the methods and techniques
delineated in the accompanying J-2 memorandum will enhance our efforts to
extract additional infonnation. Based on the analysis provided by the JTF-170

Lt Col Kantwill et al., Improving the Fighting Position, A Practitioner's Guide to Operational Law Support to
the Interrogation Process, 2005 Army Lawyer (July 2(05) at 12, 14.

467

468

LTC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies at 7.

469

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07).

4'71l

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08); Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9,2007).

471

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08).

471

Ibid.

473

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07) .

Memo from MG Michael Dunlavey to USSOUTHCOM Commander GEN James Hill, Counter-Resistance
Strategies (October 11, 2002) (hereinafter "MG Dunlavey to GEN Hill, Counter-Resistance Strategies. '')

474

SJA, I have concluded that these techniques do not violate
475
laws.

u.s.

or international

(U) On October 25,2002, GEN Hill forwarded the JTF-170 request to Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, with a memorandum stating that "despite our best
efforts, some detainees have tenaciously resisted our current interrogation methods.,,476 He
continued: "[0]ur respective staffs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Joint Task Force
170 have been trying to identify counter-resistant techniques that we can lawfully employ.'.477
When later asked, GEN Hill could not recall whether SOUTHCOM ~roduced a written opinion
analyzing the GTMO request separate from LTC Beaver's opinion. 4 8
(U) As to techniques in the GTMO request for interrogation techniques, GEN Hill said
that he "did discuss the topic of SERE training in a general manner with MG Dunlavey.,,479
Years later, in a June 3, 2004 press briefing, GEN Hill noted the influence ofthe Fort Bragg trip
and SERE school techniques on the request, stating:
The staff at Guantanamo working with behavioral scientists, having gone up to
our SERE school and developed a list of techniques which our lawyers decided
and looked at, said were OK. I sent that list oftechniques up to the Secretary and
said, in order for us to get at some of these very high-profile, high-value targets
who are resistant to techniques, I may need greater flexibility. But I want a legal
review of it and you to tell me that, policy-wise, it's the right way to do
business.480
(U) In his October 25, 2002 memo, GEN Hill stated that, although he believed Categories
I and II techniques were "legal and humane," he was uncertain about techniques in Category III
and was "particularly troubled by the use of implied or expressed threats of death ofthe detainee
or his family.'.481 Nevertheless, GEN Hill said that he "desire[d] to have as many options as
possible at [his] disposal" and asked that Departments of Defense and Justice attorneys review
the Category III techniques. 482

m MG Dunlavey to GEN Hill,

Counter-Resistance Strategies.

Memo from GEN James Hill to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffGEN Richard Myers, Counter-Resistance
Techniques, (October 25,2002) (hereinafter "GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques. 'J

476

477

GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques.

47ll

GEN James 1. Hill answers to July 31,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (August 20,2008).

479

Ibid.

480

June 3, 2004 Media Availability with Commander U.S. Southern Command.

481

GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques.

GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques; In testimony to the Army IG, the SOUTHCOM Commander
said that he thought the request "was important enough to where there ought to be a high level look at it... There
ought to be a major policy discussion of this and everybody ought to be involved." Army IG, Interview of GEN
James T. Hill (October 7, 2005), at 7.

482

(U) One SOUTHCOM Assistant Staff Judge Advocate LTC Mark Gingras testified to the
Army IG that lawyers for SOUTHCOM had concerns about Category II and Category III
techniques. 483 Regarding the GTMO request for techniques, LTC Gingras told the Anny IG:

As lawyers we're talking about adherence to the rule of law being important, and
that's what we're trying to tell everybody as we travel around the world to these
other countries. That's paramount to democracy. And so suddenly we look like
we're brushing this aside or we're twisting the law. The feeling was that decision
makers within the Pentagon didn't much care about that. They cared about
winning the War on Terrorism. And if that meant you had to pull out fmgernails
you'd pull out fmgernails, figuratively speaking.484

Military Services React to GTMO Requestfor Interrogation Techniques (U)

(U) On October 30,2002, after receiving Gen Hill's memo and the GTMO request, the
Joint Staff J-5 requested that the military services comment on the request. 485
(U) On November 1,2002, the Air Force responded, expressing "serious concerns
regarding the legality of many ofthe proposed techniques" and stating that "some ofthese
techniques could be construed as 'torture,' as that crime is defmed by 18 U.S.C. 2340.'.486 The
Air Force memorandum added that, with respect to potential prosecutions, the use ofCatego~
III techniques would "almost certainly" result in any statements obtained being inadmissible. 87
The memorandum stated that admissibility of evidence obtained using Categories I and II
techniques, the latter of which included stress positions, the use of dogs, removal of clothing, and
deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli, among other techniques, would be "fact specific, but
the same concerns remain. ,,488 The Air Force memo continued: "Additionally, the techniques
described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in the military
order to treat detainees humanely... Implementation of the proposed techniques would require a
change in Presidential policy.,,489 The memo stated that the Air Force "concurs in the need to
conduct an in-depth legal and policy assessment, as recommended by [the SOUTHCOM
Commander], prior to implementation of the proposed counter-resistance interrogation
techniques.,,490
(U) On November 4, 2002, the Navy responded to the Joint Staff's request for comment,
stating that it "concur[red] with developing a range of advanced counter-resistance techniques,"
483

Army IG, Interview of LIe Mark Gingras (October 11, 2005) at 20.

484

Ibid.

48~ Joint Staff Action Processing Form (SJS 02-06697),
486

Counter-Resistance Techniques (October 30,2002).

Department of the Air Force Memo for UN and Multilateral Affair Division (1-5), Joint Staff, Counter-Resistance

Techniques (November 1, 2002).
487

Ibid. at 1.

488

Ibid.

489

Ibid. at 2.

490

Ibid. at 1.

but recommending "a more detailed interagency legal and policy review be conducted on the ...
proposed techniques.,,491
(U) That same day, the Marine Corps submitted its written comments, which concluded

that "several ofthe Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would
expose our service members to possible prosecution.,,492 The Marine Corps memo stated that the
use ofthe techniques would also create "exposure to criminal prosecution under the UCMJ.,,493
Again, Category III techniques included the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee
that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family, exposure to
cold weather or water, use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of
suffocation, and non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking and light pushing. 494
Category II included such techniques as stress positions, deprivation oflight and auditory
stimuli, the use of a hood during questioning, 20 hour interrogations, removal of clothing, and
the use of detainee phobias, such as dogs, to induce stress. The memo also stated the Marine
Corps "disagree[d] with the position that the proposed plan is legally sufficient.,,495
(U) A few days later, the Army submitted comments from both the Office of the Judge
Advocate General (OTJAG) and the CITF. 496 The Army's cover memo stated that "Army
interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and
all ofthe Category III techniques proposed" and that the Army "concurs in the recommendation
for a comprehensive legal review ofthis proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Justice.,,491 The OTJAG's memorandum, which was attached, stated that
Category III techniques "violate the President's order [on humane treatment] and various UCMJ
articles" and that the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely
painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family and the use of a wet towel and
dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation "appear to be clear violations ofthe
federal torture statute.,,498 The OTJAG memorandum also stated that Category II techniques of
stress positions, deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli, and using individual phobias to induce
stress "crosses the line of 'humane' treatment, would likely be considered maltreatment under

491

Department of the Navy Memo for the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (1-5) Joint Staff, Navy

Planner's Memo WRT Counter-Resistance Techniques (SJS 02-06697) (November 4, 2002).
492 Memo from Marine Corps Service Planner to Director, J-5, The Joint Staff, Counter-Resistance Techniques
(November 4,2002).
493

Ibid.

494

LTC Phifer to MG Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval ofCounter-Resistance Strategies.

m Memo from Marine Corps Service Planner to Director, J-5, The Joint Staff,

Counter-Resistance Techniques

(November 4, 2002).
Memo from the Army Deputy to the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (Joint Affairs) to
the Joint Staff, J-51UNMA [UN and Multilateral Affairs Division], SJS 02-06697 (November 7,2002); Memo from
Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate (International and Operational Law) to The Office of the
Army General Counsel, Review-Proposed Counter-Resistance Techniques (undated) (hereinafter "DAJA(IO)
Memo for Army General Counsel. Proposed Counter-Resistance Techniques.")
496

497

DAJA(IO) Memo for Army General Counsel, Proposed Counter-Resistance Techniques.

498

Ibid.

Article 93 of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice], and may violate the Federal torture
statute.,,499 The memo continued that that removal of clothing and forced grooming "may be
considered inhumane" if done only for interrogation pu~oses and stated "if we mistreat
detainees, we will quickly lose the moral high ground." 0 The Army concurred with GEN
Hill's request for a legal review before techniques were adopted. 501
(U) Military lawyers were not the only personnel to object to GTMO's request for
aggressive techniques. CITF Deputy Commander Mark Fallon told the Committee that it was
CITF's view that the techniques proposed by JTF-170 would actually strengthen, rather than
weaken, detainee resistance. He explained:

Our view was that employing teclmiques that validated [the detainees] prior
training and adverse views would serve to harden resistance and reinforce what
they had been told to expect... We pointed out that SERE school tactics were
developed to better prepare U.S. military personnel to resist interrogations and not
as a means of obtaining reliable information. CITF was troubled with the
rationale that techniques used to harden resistance to interrogations would be the
basis for the utilization oftechniques to obtain information. 502
(U) CITF's legal view was reflected in a November 4, 2002 memo from CITF Chief
Legal Advisor MAJ Sam McCahon, which was also attached to the Army's response to the Joint
Staff. MAJ McCahon wrote:

[Category] III and certain [Category] II techniques may subject service members
to punitive articles of the UCMJ... CITF personnel who are aware of the use or
abuse of certain techniques may be exposed to liability under the UCMJ for
failing to intercede or report incidents, if an inquiry later determines the conduct
to be in violation of either the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 U.S.C. §2340. 503
(U) MAJ McCahon also raised concerns about the impact ofthe techniques on
evidentiary proceedings:

One detainee subjected to these techniques could taint the voluntary nature of all
other confessions and information derived from detainees not subjected to the
aggressive techniques. 504

499

Ibid.

500

Ibid.

501

Ibid.

502

Responses of Mr. Mark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15, 2006) at 7.

503 Memo from CITF Chief Legal Advisor MAl Sam McCahon to CITF Commander, Assessment of.TFF-170
Counter-Resistance Strategies and the Potential Impact on CrrF Mission and Personnel (November 4, 2002)
(hereinafter "McCahon to CDR CITF, Assessment of.TFF-170 Counter-Resistance Strategies.'j
504

McCahon to CDR CITF, Assessment of.TFF-170 Counter-Resistance Strategies.

(U) MAl McCahon added that "[b]oth the utility and legality ofapplying certain

techniques" in the October 11, 2002 memo are "questionable," and recommended that CITF
personnel not participate in or even observe the use of aggressive techniques. 505 MAJ McCahon
concluded:
I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon
the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware
of how we conduct our business. 506
(U) MAl McCahon told the Committee that his memorandum prompted a subsequent
meeting at the Pentagon. 507
(U) When the October 11,2002 GTMO request arrived in the DoD General Counsel's
office, DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for International Affairs Eliana Davidson said
that she was asked to provide her thoughts on the request. Ms. Davidson said that she had a brief
conversation with Mr. Haynes where she told him that the GTMO request needed further
assessment. 508 Mr. Haynes stated that he did not "recall that specifically.,,509

Department ofDefense General Counsel Quashes Joint StaffLegal Review (U)

(U) When the October 11,2002 GTMO request arrived at the Joint Staff, CAPT Jane
Dalton, the Legal Counsel to the Chainnan ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was "obvious to
[her] that there were some legal issues" with the request. 510 She said that techniques in Category
II ofthe request "needed to be looked at closely" and that Category III techniques "had
significant, significant concerns." 511 CAPT Dalton found LTC Beaver's legal analysis
''woefully inadequate" and said it relied on a methodology and conclusions that were "very
strained.,,512 Rather than simply deny the request, however, CAPT Dalton said that "she owed it
to the combatant commander to do a full and complete review.,,513 She subsequently directed her
staffto set up a secure video teleconference with representatives from the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA), the Army's intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, u.s. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM), and GTMO to find out more information about the techniques in the request and
to "begin discussing the legal issues to see if we could do ... our own independent legal
analysis.,,514
505

Ibid.

506

Ibid.

507

Committee staff interview ofMAJ Sam McCahon (June 15,2(07).

508

Committee staff interview ofEIiana Davidson (May 23,2008).

509

SASC Hearing (June 17,2(08).

510

Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (ApriIIO, 2(08) at 33.

m Ibid. at 45.

m Ibid. at 41.

m Ibid. at 33.
514

Ibid. at 34.

(U) CAPT Dalton recalled making Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard
Myers aware of the concerns expressed by the military services. 515 The Chairman said, however,
that he did "not specifically recall the objections ofthe Services being raised" to his attention at
that time. 516
(U) CAPT Dalton also recalled that her staff briefed the DoD General Counsel's office
about the concerns submitted by the military services and that the General Counsel himself "was
aware ofthe concerns.,,517 In a February 2008 interview, DoD Associate Deputy General
Counsel for International Affairs Eliana Davidson recalled that the service comments were made
518
available to the General Counsel's office.
DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes stated, however,
that he "did not recall seeing" the memos at that time and "didn't know they existed.,,519 He
stated that he did not recall being infonned by anyone that the military services had concerns
about the legality of Category II techniques in the request and that he did not have a "specific
recollection" of CAPT Dalton making him aware that there were concerns about the legality of
techniques in the GTMO request. 520
(U) According to CAPT Dalton, after she and her staff initiated their analysis, CJCS GEN
Myers directed her to stop that review. CAPT Dalton said that GEN Myers returned from a
meeting and "advised me that [DoD General Counsel] Mr. Haynes wanted me ... to cancel the
video teleconference and to stop" conducting the review because of concerns that "people were
going to see" the GTMO request and the military services' ana1~sis of it. 521 According to CAPT
Dalton, Mr. Haynes "wanted to keep it much more close hold." 22 When CAPT Dalton "learned
that [the DoD General Counsel] did not want that broad based legal and policy r.eview to take
place," she and her staff stopped their review. 523 This was the only time that CAPT Dalton had
ever been asked to stop analyzing a request that came to her for her review. 524
_
CAPT Dalton recalled that prior to bein~ directed to stop the review, her staffhad
begun writing draft comments on the GTMO request. 52 An undated draft of a memorandum
from GEN Myers to SOUTHCOM Commander GEN Hill, analyzing the October 11, 2002

m SASC Hearing (JIDle 17, 2008).
516

Responses of General Richard Myers to written questions from Senator Carl Levin (April 30, 2008).

m SASC Hearing (JIDle 17, 2008).
518 Committee staff interview ofEliana Davidson (February 21, 2008). Ms. Davidson said in a subsequent interview
that she was not aware of the military services' comments before discussing the October II, 2002 GTMO request
with the DoD General Counsel. Committee staff interview of Eliana Davidson (May 23,2008).

519

SASC Hearing (JIDle 17,2008).

520

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 163-65.

m Committee staff interview of RADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2008) at 34.
522

Ibid. at 35.

523

SASC Hearing (JIDle 17, 2008).

524

Ibid.

m Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2008) at 37.

GTMO request, stated "We do not believe the proposed plan is legally sufficient.,,526 The draft
memo stated that "several ofthe Category III techniques arguably violate federal law, and could
expose interrogators to possible prosecution" under the federal anti-torture laws. 527 The draft
stated that techniques in the request "may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the
requirements outlined in the military order to treat detainees humanely" and recommended an
"in-depth technical, policy, and legal assessment" ofthe techniques prior to their
implementation. 528
(U) GEN Myers said that he had "no specific recollection" of discussing with CAPT
Dalton her efforts to conduct an analysis of the October 11, 2002 GTMO request. 529 He said
that while he "did not dispute" asking her to stop working on her analysis and acknowledged that
Joint Staffrecords indicated that she did stop work on her analysis, he had "no recollection or
doing so" and did "not recall anyone suggesting" to him that she stop her review. 530 DoD
General Counsel Jim Haynes said that while it was "possible" that the issue could have come up
in a conversation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he did not "recall that specific
conversation" or expressing any opinion ofany kind with respect to CAPT Dalton's review. 531

GTMO and JPRA Plan for Additional Interrogation Training (U)

_ While GTMO's request for approval to use aggressive interrogation techniques was
pending, JPRA staff was developing an agenda for possible follow-up training for interrogation
personnel at GTMO.
•
In mid-October 2002, JPRA developed a plan of instruction to provide training on the
532
techniques to GTMO interrogators.
The training plan was virtually identical to a draft agenda
developed for the Fort Bragg training ofGTMO personnel that took place in September, which
included instruction ofthe ''use of physiological pressures.,,533
•
(FOUO) David Becker, the GTMO ICE Chief, told the Committee that once they
received authority to use the techniques in the October 11, 2002 memo, GTMO interrogators
would need training on the techniques. 534 A draft message order circulated between GTMO and
JPRA staff in late October requested "mission critical training support" for "approximatelyll
'26 Draft memo from CJCS Richard Myers to Commander, United States Southern Command, Counter-Resistance
Techniques (undated).

'l7Ibid.

,:zs Ibid.
'29 Responses of GEN (Ret.) Richard Myers to April 16, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (April 30,
2008).
'30

Ibid.

m Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 168.

m Memorandum From Joseph Witsch to JPRAlCC, JPRAlCD, JPRAICOS, JPRAlOSO, Plan ofInstruction (POI)
for TF-170 Training Support (October 16, 2002).
m

See Section III D, supra; Plan ofInstruction (pOI)for TF-170 Training Support (October 16, 2002).

'34

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

personnel" at GTMO. 535 The draft message order stated that the training would "provide the
necessary tools ITF-GTMO interrogators require to accomplish their mission critical tasks. 536
A November 15,2002 staffmemo to the Joint StaffJ-2 stated that ITFGTMO had requested training on the SERE school techniques and that the trainers were
expected to arrive in the ftrst week of December.537 The JPRA Operational Support Office
(OSO) Chief Christopher Wirts told the Committee that the requirement for JPRA to provide the
training was never approved and that his agency never conducted the training. 538 However, in
January 2003, two instructors from the Navy SERE school, John Rankin and Christopher Ross,
travelled to GTMO to train interrogators on the use of physical pressures, including slapping,
walling, and stress positions. 539

Command Change at Guantanarno as Dispute over Aggressive Techniques
Continues (U)

Major General Geoffrey MiUer Takes Command ofJTF-GTMO (U)

(U) In November 2002 a new Commander, MG Geoffrey Miller, took command of ITFGTMO. At the time, MG Miller had no ftrst-hand experience with detainees or
interrogations.540
(U) MG Miller told the Committee that prior to taking command, he met with
SOUTHCOM Commander GEN Hill and his staff. 541 During those meetings, MG Miller got the
impression that MG Dunlavey, the previous Commander, had bypassed the chain of command
by raising issues directly with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense staff. MG
Miller told the Committee that GEN Hill authorized him to speak directly with the Joint Staff
and the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense, but that he told SOUTHCOM he would keep
SOUTHCOM informed ofthose communications.542
(U) MG Miller said that, while he was in Command at GTMO, he had direct discussions
with the DoD General Counsel's office and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SO/LIC).543 MG Miller also testifted to the
Army IG that he and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ''talked once a week when I
m Email from Chris Wirts t o _ , Richard Driggers, Joseph Witsch. _ _ and Gary Percival

(October 29,2002) (hereinafter ..EmaIl from Chris Wirts (October 29,2002).")
536

Email from Chris Wirts (October 29,2(02).

m m -170 and m -160 were combined to form JIF-GTMO in October 2002; Memo from
[Joint Stafl], GTMO Detainee
(November 15, 2002).

m Committee staff interview of Chris Wirts (Januaty 4, 2008).
m See Section VII C, infra.
540

Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (October 20, 2005) at 5.

541

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

542

Ibid.

543

Ibid.

was in Guantanamo.,,544 Lt Col Ted Moss, the ITF-GTMO ICE Chiefwho began his tour of
duty at GTMO in December 2002, said that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was in phone contact
with MG Miller "a 101.,,545 However, MG Miller told the Committee that he misspoke when he
testified to the Army IG and that, to the best of his knowledge, he did not speak to Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz on the phone while he was at GTMO, but only briefed him quarterly, in
person, on GTMO operations.546
(U) Shortly after MG Miller arrived at GTMO, the Director for Intelligence (J-2) LTC
Phifer infonned him ofthe October 11, 2002 request 547 Although he later approved an
interrogation plan that included reference to Category III techniques, MG Miller told the Army
IG that he believed that the techniques in Category III and some techniques in Category II were
"overly aggressive" and that he had not intended to use them. 548 MG Miller said he had concerns
with stress positions, removal of clothing, and use of dogs, among other techniques.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that those techniques were used at GTMO while he was in
command. MG Miller told the Committee that he thought he discussed his concerns about the
techniques with LTC Beaver in early November before the Secretary approved their use, but that
he did not raise it with SOUTHCOM because he wanted to see which techniques would be
approved.549
(U) MG Miller told the Army IG that when he arrived at GTMO, there was significant

tension between JTF-GTMO, CITF, and FBI and that he sought to get all three organizations to
work in concert. 550 Despite MG Miller's stated intent, his decision to approve an interrogation
plan for Mohammed al Khatani that was opposed by the CITP and FBI, drove a deeper wedge
between his organization and both CITP and FBI.

Khatani Interrogation Plan Fuels Dispute Over Aggressive Techniques (U)

(U) After their unsuccessful interrogation of Khatani in October 2002, JTF-GTMO staff
spent several weeks drafting an extensive new interrogation plan. The plan was the first "Special
Interrogation Plan" at GTMO and it would encounter strong resistance from both CITF and the
FBI. One FBI Special Agent told the Committee that he thought Khatani's interrogation would
defme the conduct of future interrogations at GTMO and therefore they "had to get it right.,,551

Several drafts of JTP-GTMO's interrogation plan for Khatani were circulated at
GTMO in November 2002. The discussion below focuses primarily on two ofthose drafts, one
circulated on November 12, 2002 and another which was drafted about a week later and appears
544

Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (June 28, 2005).

545

Committee staff interview of Lt. Col. Ted Moss (October 17,2007).

546

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

547

Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (October 20, 2005) at 11.

548

Ibid.

549

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (October 20, 2005) at 7.

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007).

to have been finalized on November 22, 2002. Both drafts are discussed here because each
provides insight on the range of interrogation techniques considered by senior officials at
GTMO. In addition, there is evidence that both draft plans were approved by MG Miller.
Finally, there is evidence that techniques which were included in the "draft" circulated on
November 12,2002 but removed from the purported "final" plan, were nevertheless used during
Khatani's interrogation.

JTF-GTMO StaJJCirculate Khatani Interrogation Plan (U)

According to the report completed by Vice Admiral (VADM) Church, "after
discussing the matter in early November 2002 with the Secretary of Defense, SOUTHCOM
Commander GEN Hill gave verbal approval on November 12,2002 for use of all Category I and
II counter resistance techniques against Khatani.,,552 GEN Hill told the Committee that he had
no recollection of that. 553 That same day, November 12,2002, LTC Phifer sent an email and a
four page interrogation plan to MG Miller stating "[h]ere is the Interrogation Plan for [Khatani]
as approved by you.,,554
liThe next day, GTMO ICE Chief David Becker emailed the plan, which he referred to
as the "[l]atest approved by MG Miller," to a GTMO interrogator. 555 According to the plan, the
interrogation was scheduled to begin on November 15, 2002. 556 Mr. Becker told the Committee
that the plan was developed by his interrogators with input from him and LTC Phifer. 557 In
2005, MG Miller testified to the Army IG that he thought the plan circulated on November 12,
2002 was part of the fmal version ofthe plan that he approved. 558 However, in a subsequent
investigation, MG Miller identified a later version as the final plan. 559 He told the Committee
that he never approved the version ofthe plan circulated on November 12,2002.560 However,
contemporaneous documents indicate that others believed the plan circulated on November 12,
2002 had been approved by both MG Miller and SOUTHCOM and expected it to be
implemented on November 15,2002:

m Church Report at 115.
m General James Hill answers to July 28, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (August 20, 2008).
554

Email from LTC Jerald Phifer to MG Geoffrey Miller (November 12, 2002).

H5 Email from David Becker to [Interrogation Control Element Staff Sergeant] (November 13, 2002). Both the
plan attached to those emails and the subsequent plan identified by the ITF-GTMO Commander as the "fmal" plan
contained the ITF-GTMO Commander's [Miller] signature block. However, the Committee has not seen any
version of the plan that contained the ITF-GTMO Commander's signature.

Interrogation Plan for ISN:

[Khatani] (November 12, 2002).

H7 Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007). One FBI agent who was a member of the
FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit told the Committee that multiple versions of the plan were actually circulated at
GTMO during this period. Committee Staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007).
558

Army!G, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 7.

Hll

Inge Report.

560

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

· 11_The November 12,2002 email from the Director for Intelligence LTC Phifer
to MG Miller stated, "[h]ere is the Interrogation Plan for ISN: 063 as approved by you.
Request you fwd to Gen Hill, info J2/J3/COS. We will begin at 0001 15 Nov per your
gUl'dance. 561

· II The November 13,2002 email from the GTMO ICE Chief David Becker referred to
the November 12,2002 plan, which was attached to his email, as the "[l]atest approved
by MG Miller.,,562

•
•

_
A November 14,2002 email from the GTMO Staff Judge Advocate LTC
Diane Beaver to CITF lawyer
stated, "[c]oncerning 63
[Khatani] my understanding is that NSC has weighed in and stated that intel on
this guy is utmost matter of national security... We are drivin§ forward with
support ofSOUTHCOM. Not sure anything else needs to be said." 64

• _
A November 15,2002 staff memorandum for the J-2 ofthe Joint Staff stated that
"interrogators were preparing to interrogate [Khatani] beginning at 15 0001 November
2002 .. .'.565
According to the November 12,2002 plan, the purpose ofthe interrogation
was to "break the detainee and establish his role in the attacks ofSept[ember] 11,2001.,.566 The
interrogation would be conducted for "20-hour sessions" and at the completion of each session,
Khatani would be permitted four hours of rest, and then "another 20 hour interrogation session
[would] begin.,,567

'61 Email from LTC Jerald Phifer to MG Geoffrey Miller (November 12, 2002) (emphasis added), attached as
exhibit 7 to the Inge Report.
'62

Email from David Becker to [Interrogation Control Element Staff Sergeant] (November 13, 2002).

'63 Notes of FBI Special Agent, Timeline Regarding Interrogation Plansfor Detainee #063, entry at "1111212002"
(emphasis added).

Email from LTC Diane Beaver to. . . . . . . . (November 14, 2002) (emphasis added). Then-National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice s~therbriefed on, nor did she review, the Khatani
interrogation plan. Similarly, then-NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that, to the best of his recollection, he
too was neither briefed on, nor did he review the plan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Bellinger
answers to July 31,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12,2008).
'64

'6' Memo f r o m _ l l l l t o [Joint Staff], GTMO Detainee
(emphasis added).
'66 Interrogation Plan for I S N : _ t a n i ] (November 12, 2002).
'67

Ibid.

(November 15, 2002)

Prior to the fIrst interrogation, we would like to have the detainee's head and
beard shaved. This is to be done for both s cholo .cal and h iene purposes.
During the
interrogations the detainee will at times be placed in stress positions and
blindfolded. If necessary the detainee may have his mouth taped shut in order to
keep him from talking. Written approval for the tape and for the presence of dogs
will be submitted and obtained prior to implementation.569

The November 12, 2002 plan went on to describe four phases for the interrogation. 570
During Phase I, interrogators would increase the pressure on Khatani while not permitting him to
speak, with the expectation that Khatani, when later presented with the opportunity to speak to
an interrogator, would "provide his whole story.,,571

Phase II of the plan was to lace a coo erative detainee or a native lin
X-Ra in full view of Khatani. 572

ist at Cam

II Phase III of the plan, which was entitled "Level III techniques," was to utilize
techniques based on those used at SERE school. The plan slated:
The third phase of the plan to exploit 063 requires OSD approval for the SERE
interrogation technique training and approval of the level three counter
interrogation resistance training submitted by JTF-GTMO. Once the approvals
are in place, those interro ation techni ues will be im lemented to encoura e 063
to coo erate.

'68

Ibid.

'69 Ibid. A third draft of the plan which appears to have been produced after November 12 stated that "written
approval for use of gauze and for the presence of dogs have been approved by [MG Miller]" and was sent from an
attorney in the DoD General Counsel's office to an attorney at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel
in May 2003. January 31, 2008 SASC staff notes on Vaughn declaration documents.
'70

Interrogation Plan for ISN

[Khatani] (November 12, 2002).

m Ibid.
mIbid.
m Ibid.

II The plan's final phase, Phase IV, was entitled "Coalition Exploitation" and stated
that:
The fourth phase ofthe plan to exploit 063 requires that he be sent off island either
temporarily or permanently to either [two specified third countries], or another country to
allow those countries to employ interrogation techniques that will enable them to obtain
the requisite information. 57

CITF and FBI Object to Proposed Interrogation Techniques (U)

(U) On November 14,2002, CITF Commander COL Britt Mallow sent an email to MG
Miller raising concerns about both the Khatani interrogation and the October 11, 2002 request
for authority to use aggressive interrogation techniques. 575 He stated:

I strongly disagree with the use of many of the proposed [Category] 3 and some
[Category] 2 techniques. I feel they will be largely ineffective, and that they will
have serious negative material and legal effects on our investigations. I also am
extremely concerned that the use of many of these techniques will open any
military members up for potential criminal charges, and that my agents, as well as
other [military personnel] will face both legal and ethical problems if they become
aware oftheir use. 576
(U) COL Mallow told the Committee that in addition to his email, he raised concerns

about the Khatani interrogation in conversations with MG Miller and in "several meetings with
the DoD [General Counse1].,,577 COL Mallow said that MG Miller told him in a meeting that "if
[CITF] did not want to participate in interrogations with the intelligence community because of
our objections to methods, that [CITF] would not have the benefit of information resulting from
any ofthose interrogations.,,578
.
(U) MG Miller told the Committee that, while he did not recall the CITF Commander's
November 14, 2002 email specifically, he did recall communications from COL Mallow to that
effect. 579 DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes stated that he did not recall seeing a copy of the
Khatani interrogation plan at that time and did not "specifically" recall his staff advising him that
CITF and FBI had concerns with interrogation techniques in the Khatani interrogation plan. 580

_
A CITF Legal Advisor,
,also raised objections to ITFGTMO's interrogation plan for Khatani. In a November 15,2002 memo for MG Miller,.
m Ibid.

m Email from COL Britt Mallow to MG Geoffrey Miller (November 14, 2002).

"6 Ibid.
m Responses of COL (Ret.) Britt Mallow to questiomaire of Senator Carl Levin (September IS, 2006).
578

Ibid.

m Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).
'so Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 221, 228.

_
said that "the reliability of any information gained from aggressive techniques will be
highly questionable" and objected to all "physical stresses intended for use" in Phase III ofthe
interrogation plan. 581
also objected to Phase IV ofthe plan, stating that it implied
"that third country nationals with harsher interrogation standards could be used to convey threats
to persons of family or inflict harm contrary to the Convention Against Torture.,,582
_ T h e Khatani interrogation did not proceed on November 15,2002 as
planned. A November 15,2002 staff memo to the Joint Staff J-2 indicated that the interrogation
was delayed while MG Miller "consider[ed] COL Mallow's objections.,,583 MG Miller denied
that the Khatani interrogation was delayed because of COL Mallow's concerns, instead telling
the Committee that the interrogation was delayed because he had not received SOUTHCOM's
approva1. 584 However, as noted above, GTMO Staff Judge Advocate LTC Diane Beaver
indicated in a November 14,2002 email that ITF-GTMO planned to move forward "with support
of SOLFfHCOM.,,585
(U) In his November 14,2002 email to MG Miller, COL Mallow proposed that ITFGTMO and CITF develop a mutually acceptable interrogation plan for Khatani. 586 On
November 20,2002, FBI personnel, who were working closely with CITF, met with JTF-GTMO
staff to discuss developing such a plan. 587

JTF-GTMO Briefs DoD General Counsel's OffICe on Interrogation
Plan (U)

'81 Memo from
Techniques (November 15, 2002).

for Major General Geoffrey Miller, Objection to Aggressive Interrogation

'82 Ibid.
'83

Memo from

to J-2, Joint Staff, GTMO Detainee _ 0 6 3 . (November 15, 2002).

'84 Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

'8' Email from LTC Diane Beaver to

(November 14, 2002) (emphasis added).

'86

Email from COL Britt Mallow to MG Geoffrey Miller (November 14, 2002).

'87

FBI memo to Major General Miller, VTC 21 November 2002 (undated).

'88

Committee staff interview of FBI Special agent (November 8, 2007).

'89

Internal FBI Email, Interview Plans (November 21,2002).

'90

Ibid.

.On

November 21,2002, MG Miller, LTC Phifer, and representatives from the FBI,
CITF, SOUTHCOM, and the DoD General Counsel's office all participated in a video
teleconference (VTC) to discuss the Khatani interrogation. 591
IILTC Phifer told the Committee that he and MG Miller briefed the group on the
Khatani plan and that during the VTC, DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for International
Affairs Eliana Davidson stated that the Department was comfortable with what ITF-GTMO had
planned. 592 MG Miller told the Committee that he did not recall the VTC. 593 Ms. Davidson said
that she recalled participating in VTCs where the Khatani interrogation was discussed, but she
did not recall if she had a copy of the interrogation plan itself and did not recall saying that the
~ f Defense was comfortable with what ITF-GTMO proposed for the interrogation. 594
- - - . the psychiatrist with the GTMO Behavioral Science Consultation Team, said that
in the context ofthe Khatani interrogation, ''we were routinely told that the interrogation strategy
was approved up to [the Secretary of Defense] level.,,595
(U) Subsequent to the VTC, the FBI sent a memo to MG Miller alerting him to FBI
"misgivings about the overall coercive nature and possible illegality" ofthe Khatani
interrogation plan and informing him that the FBI had presented ITF-GTMO staffwith "an
alternative interrogation approach based on long-term rapport building.,,596 A draft ofthat
alternative approach, which was the product of both the FBI and CITF, stated that Khatani's
negative interactions with interrogators "only reinforces Al-Qaeda stereotypes about evil
Americans and validates their expectation of harsh treatment and potential torture.,,597
(U) On November 22, 2002, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Chief
Psychologist Michael Gelles drafted a formal review of a ITF-GTMO draft plan. 598 Dr. Gelles
concluded that the interrogation plan "lack[ed] substantive and thoughtful consideration.,,599
Among other concerns, Dr. Gelles stated:

m Notes of FBI Special Agent, Timeline Regarding Interrogation Plansfor Detainee #063, entry at "11/21/2002."
m.Committee staff interview of LTC Jerry Phifer (June 27, 2007). Notes taken by an FBI Special Agent who
participated in the VIC indicate that, in briefIng the Defense HUMINT Service (DHS) plan, LTC Phifer
"portray[ed] the DHS Interrogation Plan to SOUTHCOM and the General Counsel at the Pentagon as a unifIed
FBIIDHS Interrogation Plan." The FBI Special Agent's notes state that the LTC Phifer characterization was "in
direct contradiction" to what the Special Agent had told Phifer the previous day. See notes of FBI Special Agent,
Timeline Regarding Interrogation Plansfor Detainee #063, entry at "11/21/2002."
'93

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007).

'94

Committee staff interview 0 f Eliana Davidson (February 21, 2008).

'9' Written statement O~(August
'96 FBI

memo to Major General Miller,

'97 FBI and

21, 2007) at 8.

vrc 2I Navember 2002 (undated).

CITF Draft Interrogation Plan (November 22, 2002).

'98 Memo from Michael G. Gelles, Psy.D. to Marie Fallon, Review offI'F-GTMO Interrogation Plan Detainee 063,
(November 22, 2002) (hereinafter "Review offI'F-GTMO Interrogation Plan Detainee 063 (November 22, 2002)").
'99 Review offI'F-GTMO Interrogation Plan Detainee 063 (November 22, 2002).
80

Strategies articulated in the later phases reflect techniques used to train US forces
in resisting interrogation by foreign enemies ... [These techniques] would prove
not only to be ineffective but also border on techniques and strategies deemed
unacceptable by law enforcement professionals... 600
(U) Dr. Gelles noted that '"the choice to use force with this adversary in an interrogation
may only reinforce his resistance" and stated that ifthe plan were implemented he would "have
trouble not finding myself from a professional perspective, being forced into an adversary
position through cross examination in a military tribunal as an expert in interrogation.,,601
(U) Notwithstanding the CITF and FBI concerns, MG Miller authorized interrogators to
proceed with the Khatani interrogation beginning November 23, 2002.

uFinal" KhatanilnterrogationPlan (U)

11_

MG Miller identified a version ofthe Khatani plan that had been written on
November 22, 2002 as the "final" plan that he authorized to be implemented on November 23,
2002. 602 While similar to the plan circulated on November 12,2002, the November 22,2002
plan contained notable differences from the earlier version that contemporaneous documents
indicated had also been approved.
_ _ Although there is evidence that both stress positions and dogs were
used in the Khatani interrogation, the November 22,2002 plan does not mention either ofthese
two techniques. 603 MG Miller said the stress positions and use of dogs were removed from the
plan at his direction. 604
_
With respect to dogs, MG Miller said that neither LTC Phifer, nor LTC
Beaver objected to the use of dogs and that his ICE Chief, Mr. Becker, actually favored the use
of dogs in interrogations. 605 MG Miller said, however, that he only approved the use of dogs for
security around the perimeter of Camp X-Ray, where the interrogation was to take place, and
that he made that view absolutely clear to Mr. Becker. CAPT Jane Dalton, the Legal Counsel to
the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff said, however, that she met with MG Miller in early
November and discussed the use of dogs for interrogation purposes. 606 She said that the "theory
was that certain individuals are afraid of dogs" and that, while MG Miller talked about dogs

600

Ibid.

601

Ibid.

601

Inge RePort at 9.

Interrogation Plan for ISN:
plan (November 22, 2002).").

603

[Khatani] (November 22,2002) (hereinafter "Khatani interrogation

604

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

605

Ibid.

606

Committee staff interview of RADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2008) at 84.

being outside the interrogation room, they discussed the purpose of the dogs' presence during
interrogations was that it "exploits [the detainee's] fear.,,607

~ Mr. Becker told the Committee that MG Miller told him to remove dogs
from the plan.
Nevertheless, a document describing interrogation techniques used in the
Khatani interrogation and a witness account (both discussed below) suggest that dogs were used
during the interrogation to shock and agitate Khatani. 609
With respect to stress positions, Mr. Becker told the Committee that,
notwithstanding the fact that they were included in the earlier plan, there was never an intent to
use stress positions with Khatani. 610 A document that appears to have been produced during the
Khatani interrogation, however, stated that stress positions would "be employed.,,611 In addition,
a 2005 memo from the ITF-GTMO Chief of Staff referencing the 2002 interrogation stated that
Khatani had "slight abrasions caused by stress positions and shackle restraints.,,612

11_ The November 22, 2002
plan identified by MG Miller as the final plan
613

described five phases to the interrogation.
Phase I, which was added after November 12,
called for the interrogators to "Induce and exploit Stockholm Syndrome" by establishing "an
isolated, austere environment where the detainee becomes completely dependent on the
interrogators and the interrogator presents himself as a 'caretaker' of the detainee.,,614 Dr. Gelles
,said that the idea of inducing the Stockholm syndrome implied that '<the subject feels that he is to
be killed and the information provided may in fact be distorted.,,61s
_
Phase II ofthe November 22, 2002 plan (which is largely the same as Phase
I of the earlier plan) stated that prior to the start of the first Phase II interrogation session,
Khatani's head and beard would be shaved for "safety, hygiene and psychological purposes.,,616
In addition, the plan stated that MG Miller had approved the use of hospital gauze to restrain the
detainee's mouth to prevent him from becoming argumentative and verbally abusive.

6111

Ibid.

608

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17,2007).

~,MethodsEmployed X-Ray Interrogation ISN 63(S) (January 17,2003). Army IG, Interview of
_ ( A p r i l 28, 2006).
610

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

611

Memo, 063 Plan ofAttack: Phase I Bravo (undated).

612 Memo from COL John ~f Staff, USSOUTHCOM, Executive Summary on Information
Concerning Detainee ISN:~(Ilj (March 14, 2005).

613

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002).

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002). The Stockholm Syndrome refers to a psychological event
where hostages begin to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captors. The syndrome draws its name from a
bank robbery and hostage situation in Stockholm, Sweden in 1973.

614

615

Review ofJI'F-GTMO Interrogation Plan Detainee 063 (November 22, 2002).

616

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002).

Phase III ofthe November 22, 2002 plan was largely the same as Phase II of
the ear ler p an an proposed having a native linguist translator play the role ofa detainee to
elicit information from Khatani. 617
Phase IV ofthe November 22,2002 plan - which described the use of
interrogation techniques based on those used in SERE school to increase u.S. personnel's
resistance to illegal enemy interrogations - was virtually identical to the earlier plan and stated:
The fourth phase of the plan to exploit 063 [Khatani] requires [Office of the
Secretary of Defense] approval for the SERE interrogation technique training and
approval of the level three counter interrogation resistance training submitted by
ITF-GTMO. Once the approvals are in place, those interrogation techniques will
be implemented to encourage 063 to cooperate. The intent of raising the stakes to
this level is to convince 063 that it is futile to resist. Success of Phase III is when
his sense of futility is raised to a high enough level that source gives in and
provides the necessary information. Phase III ends with success or a standstill,
after the exhaustion of all tools ITF GTMO has to offer. 618

II Despite having approved the plan, MG Miller testified to the Army IG that he knew

"little about SERE" and "wasn't comfortable" with SERE techniques. 619 However, MG Miller
acknowledged to the Committee that these techniques were included in the approved plan and
that, if the ftrst three phases of the Khatani plan were unsuccessful, that he was willing to
consider the use of SERE techniques. 620

liThe

plan's final phase, Phase V, maintained the same title "Coalition Exploitation" as
Phase IV ofthe earlier plan but did not explicitly state an intention to render Khatani to a third
country, as did the earlier plan. 621 Instead, under "Coalition Exploitation" the November 22,
2002 plan stated that:
The fifth phase of the plan to exploit 063 will be determined at the national,
interagency level where the future disposition of 063 will be determined. 622

Interrogation Plan for ISN:
[Khatani] (November 15, 2002) (hereinafter "Khatani interrogation
plan (November 15, 2002)"); Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002).

617

618

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002).

619

Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (March 26, 2006).

620

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

621

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22,2002).

621

Ibid.

623

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007).

624 Nevertheless, the idea oftransferring Khatani to a third

FBI and CITF Continue to Object to Khatani Interrogation Plan (U)

(U) On November 22, 2002 the FBI sent MG Miller a memo that outlined FBI's
continuing concerns about ITF-GTMO interrogation techniques. The FBI also requested a
meeting with the Commander. 628 The memo stated:
Many of [ITF-GTMO's] methods are considered coercive by Federal Law
Enforcement and UCMJ standards. Not only this, but reports from those
knowledgeable about the use of these coercive techniques are highly skeptical as
to their effectiveness and reliability. 629
(U) The memo stated further that the "FBI/CITF strongly believes that the continued use
of diametrically opposed interrogation strategies in GTMO will only weaken our efforts to obtain
valuable infonnation. ,,630
(U) In late November, FBI agents at GTMO asked that their concerns about ITF-GTMO
interrogation techniques be relayed to Marion "Spike" Bowman, a senior attorney in the FBI's
Office of General Counsel. 631 Mr. Bowman said that "[a]s soon as I heard from the [the FBI
agents] I talked with (now retired) Executive Assistant Director Pat D'Amuro who immediately
said we (the FBI) would not be a party to actions of any kind that were contrary to FBI policy
and that individuals should distance themselves from any such actions.,,632 Mr. Bowman also
recommended to FBI General Counsel Kenneth Wainstein that FBI relay the concerns to the
DoD General Counsel's office. Mr. Bowman subsequently called the acting DoD Deputy
General Counsel for Intelligence and believes he also spoke with the DoD Principal Deputy

624

Ibid.

625

See Section VB 5, irifra.

626

Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002).

627 Ibid.;

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007).

628 FBI Memorandum to JTF -170 Commander MG Geoffrey Miller (November 22, 2002). Despite the heading on
the memorandum, JTF-GTMO had replaced JTF -170 by the time this memo was written.
629

Ibid.

630

Ibid.

631

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8,2007).

632

Responses of Marion Bowman to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (August 7, ,2006).

General Counsel. DoD General Counsel Jim Harres said that he did not recall being aware that
the FBI had contacted his office with concerns. 63
(U) On December 2, 2002, an FBI Special Agent, who was also an attorney, sent his own
legal analysis ofthe October 11,2002 GTMO request to another Special Agent for forwarding to
Mr. Bowman. 634 The FBI Special Agent referred to several techniques - such as all the Category
III techniques and several Category II techniques, including stress positions, hooding, removal of
clothing, 20 hour interrogations, and use of individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce
stress - as "coercive interrogation techniques which are not pennitted by the U.S.
Constitution.,,635 The Special Agent's analysis also identified several techniques - including all
Category III techniques and two Category II techniques, i.e. hooding and use of phobias - as
"examples of coercive interrogation techniques which may violate 18 U.S.C. § 2340, (Torture
Statute)" and warned that "it is possible that those who employ these techniques may be indicted,
prosecuted, and possibly convicted if the trier of fact determines that the user had the requisite
intent.,,636
(U) The following day, Mr. Bowman sent an email to another FBI Special Agent, stating
"[i]t is irrelevant whether these detainees are considered prisoners of war, they are still entitled to
minimal conditions of treatment - many ofthe techniques addressed appear to move well beyond
the minimal requirements ... I concur that we can't control what the military is doing, but we
need to stand well clear of it and get as much information as possible to D' Amuro, Gebhart, and
Mueller as soon as possible.,,637 Director Mueller said that he was not aware of the FBI's
concerns with DoD interrogation techniques at GTMO until May 2004. 638

633

Committee staff interview ofWilliam J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 236.

634

Email from FBI Special ABent (December 2,2002).

FBI Memo, Legal IssuesRe Interrogation Techniques, attached to Email from FBI Special ABent (December 2,
2002).

635

636

Ibid.

637

Email from Marion Bowman (December 3,2002).

Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
1091b Congo (February 16, 2005).

638

639

Committee staff interview of FBI Special ABent (November 8, 2007).

640

Email from FBI Special ABent (May 10, 2004).

The DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for
International Affairs, Eliana Davidson, said that the FBI's Unit Chief believed that efforts at
GTMO were not bein roductive and that he advocated for Khatani's transfer durin the
642
VTC.

DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes said he did not
remember discussing the possible rendition of Khatani, but that "it may have been
considered. ,,648
(U) CITF Deputy Commander Mark Fallon said that FBI proposed to CITF the idea of
rendering Khatani to a third country but that CITF "considered it possibly unlawful" and
opposed the proposal. 649 He said CITF staff made Mr. Cobb aware oftheir concerns and that
Mr. Cobb supported the CITF position.
641

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8,2007).

642

Committee staff interview of Eliana Davidson (May 23, 2008).

64J

Committee staff interview of FBI Unit Chief (May 17, 2008).

644

Ibid.

64~

Ibid.

646

Ibid.

647

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8,2007).

648

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 232.

649

Responses of Mark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15, 2006).

(U) The same day the VTC took place, FBI's on-site supervisor and two Special Agents
met with MG Miller where they again raised their concerns about JTF-GTMO interrogation
techniques. 650 One FBI Special Agent told the Committee that MG Miller thanked the FBI
personnel for their views, but told them that JTF-GTMO staffknew what they were doing. 651
(U) On December 9, 2002, another FBI Special Agent who attended the meeting sent an
email stating, "when I return to D.C., I will bring a copy ofthe military's interview plan [for
Khatani] ... You won't believe it!,,652 Several months later he characterized the December 5,
2002 meeting with MG Miller:
Although [MG] Miller acknowledged positive aspects of [the FBI's approach to
interrogations] it was apparent that he favored [JTF-GTMO's] interrogation
methods, despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the
elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information. 653
_ JTF-GTMO ICE Chief David Becker told the Committee that MG Miller asked him
at one point why the JTF was not using the FBI's approach, to which Mr. Becker replied that the
JTF had already tried the FBI approach, that it did not work, and that he wanted to be more
aggressive. 654

Khatani Interrogation Begins, CITF Directed To "Stand Clear" (U)

(U) On November 23, 2002, ITF-GTMO personnel took Khatani to Camp X-Ray to
begin Phase I ofthe interrogation. 655 Two days later, CITF attorney
sent the
GTMO Staff Judge Advocate, LTC Diane Beaver, an email indicating that '·CITF is not on board
with aggressive techniques including 20 hour [plus] interrogations. Therefore, according to our
policy, we will ·stand clear' and not offer participation, advisements, support or
recommendations as to its implementation,,656 CITF later drafted formal guidance for its agents
stating that "Detainees will be treated humanely. Physical torture, corporal punishment and
mental torture are not acceptable interrogation tactics and are not allowed under any
circumstances... CITF personnel will not participate in any interrogation that employs tactics
inconsistent with or in direct violation ofthis pOlicy.,,657

6~O Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agents (November 8, 2007).
6~1 Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007).

m Email from FBI Special Agent (December 9,2002).
6~3

Electronic Communication from FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) (May 30, 2003).

6~4 Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).
6~~

Army Regulation 15-6: Final Report: Investigation Into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse At Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba Detention Facility, prepared by Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow (hereinafter "SehmidtFurlow Report'').
6~6 Email

from

to LTC Diane Beaver (November 25, 2002).

m DoD CITF Memo for All Personnel.Assigned to the DoD Criminal Investigation Task Force, ALCITF
Memorandum 004-02, Interrogation Procedures (December 16, 2002).

Techniques Used During Khatani Inte"ogation (U)

(U) According to

the GTMO BSCT psychiatrist who participated in the
interrogation, just before the Khatani interrogation began, Khatani was "made [to] believe he
stated that Khatani was
was sent to a hostile country which advocated torture.,,658
also "led to believe he himself might be killed ifhe did not cooperate with questioning.,,659 The
actual interrogation took place at GTMO's Cam X-Ra . LTC Phifer told the Committee that
Khatani was taken to X-Ra

IIHowever, an interrogator who participated in the interrogation told the Committee
that part ofthe reason Khatani was taken to X-Ray was to scare him. 661
(U) Khatani was interrogated from November 23,2002 through January 16,2003.662 In

June 2004, SOUTHCOM Commander GEN Hill, described the origin of some ofthe
interrogation techniques used in the interrogation:
The staff at Guantanamo working with behavioral scientists, having gone up to
our SERE school and developed a list of techniques which our lawyers decided
and looked at, said were OK. I sent that list oftechniques up to the Secretary and
said, in order for us to get at some of these very high-profile, high-value targets
who are resistant to techniques, I may need greater flexibility. But I want a legal
review of it and you to tell me that, policywise, it's the right way to do business.
He did that. And he approved additional techniques, which I would not describe
as harsh, but additional techniques and gave them to me the first part of
December. And we began to use a few of those techniques, a few of those
techniques on this individual... 663
_ _ A memo dated January 17, 2003 also described techniques '"used"
against Khatani between November 23,2002 and January 16,2003, including stripping, forced
grooming, invasion of space by a female interrogator, treating Khatani like an animal, using a
military working dog, and forcing him to pray to an idol shrine. 664

6~8 Written statement o~ (August 21, 2007).
6~9

Ibid.

660

Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27,2007).

661

Committee staff interview of ITF-GTMO Interrogator (January 9, 2008).

662

Schmidt-Furlow Report at 17.

663 Transcript of Media Availability with Commander U.S Southern Command General James Hill (June 3,2004)
(emphasis added). Despite General Hill's acknowledgement in 2004, in comments submitted to the DoD IG's
August 25,2006 report, the DoD General Counsel's office stated that "there is no evidence that SERE techniques
were ever adopted at Guantanamo or anywhere else." See DoD Office of General Counsel, Legal Review ofDRAFT

SECRETINOFORN DoD IG Report, "Review ofDoD-Directed Investigations ofDetainee Abuse (Project No.
D2004-DINT01-0174) (U)" (June 8, 2006) at 8.
Memo, Methods Employed X-Ray Interrogation ISN 63 (January 17, ~of the memo is unknown
but a copy of the memo was sent by the JTF-GTMO BSCT p s y c h i a t r i s t , _ to LTC Morgan Banks,

664

These techniques are similar to techniques used in SERE school. In fact,
JPRA training slides, identified by a JPRA instructor as those presented to interrogation
personnel deploying for GTMO, identified "religious disgrace" and "invasion of personal space
by a female" as methods to defeat resistance. 665 Likewise, JPRA materials identified
"degradation" as a method to defeat resistance, which was understood to include such methods
as stripping the individual, having the guards address the individual as ifthat person were an
"animal" or of "very low status," and controlling use ofthe latrine. 666
_
The January 17,2003 memo stated that "[s]earch/strip search" was
used on Khatani "for security and to assert control. ,,667 A second document that appears to have
been produced while the Khatani interrogation was ongoing stated that "removal of clothing"
would "be employed" as part of Khatani's interrogation. 668 Despite the contemporaneous
documents suggesting that removal of clothing was used during the interrogation, several senior
JTF-GTMO personnel have said they were unaware of its use as an interrogation technique.

· 11_ MG Miller told the Committee that he infonned his Director for Intelligence,
LTC Phifer, that he opposed the forced removal of clothing as an interrogation technique
and in a 2004 sworn statement stated that "to the best of my knowledge JTF-GTMO
never used [removal of clothing]" during the six week period in late 2002 early 2003
when it was authorized. 669
•

LTC Phifer and his replacement, COL Richard Sanders (who was given the title of Joint
Intelligence Group (JIG) Commander) told the Committee that they were not aware that
Khatani was strip searched. 670

•

Both Mr. Becker, the ICE Chief present for the development ofthe Khatani plan, and his
successor Lt Col Ted Moss, who assumed the position when the interrogation was
already underway, told the Committee that they were unaware of Khatani being stripped
at the direction or suggestion of interrogation personnel. 671

the Chief of the Psychological Applications Directorate (pAD) at the u.s. Army's Special Operations Command
(USASOC).
66~

See Section I D, supra.

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at '22; Level C Peacetime Governmental Detention Survival
JPRAinstruetor Guide, Exploitation: Threats andPressures, Module 6.0, Lesson 6.1, para 5.3.3 (Version 001.1).

666

667

Methods Employed X-Ray Interrogation ISN 63 (January 17, 2003).

668

Memo, 063 Plan ofAttack: Phase I Bravo (undated).

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007); Sworn Statement ofMG Geoffrey Miller
(June 19, 2004).

669

Committee staff interview 0 f LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007); Committee staff interview of COL Richard
Sanders (August 10, 2007).

670

671 Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007); Committee staff interview of David Becker
(September 17, 2007).

_ _ The January 17,2003 memo stated that Khatani's head and beard
were shaved "for hygienic purposes and to assert control over the detainee," that Khatani's hands
were shackled to a chair to prevent him from praying, and that pral,er was denied in
circumstances where prayer was ''used as a resistance technique." 72 The memo stated that up to
eight ounces of water was poured over Khatani's head as a "method of asserting control" when
Khatani exhibited ''undesired behavior.,,673 And it said Khatani was forced to "sit, stand, lay
down, walk or other non-stress position activities by guards to enforce the control ofthe
interrogator.,,674 MAJ Burney said that Khatani was "made to stand for several hours at a time or
sit on a hard chair for several hours at a time. 675 The January 17, 2003 memo also stated that
Khatani was ridiculed and berated ''to elicit an adversarial response.,,676
_
The memorandum listed several techniques used to increase Khatani's stress
level including using of a female interrogator who "touch[ed] [Khatani] in close proximi
instructin Khatani ''to ra to idol shrine to test reli ious tern erance and incur,'

_
The memo stated that "K-9 units [were] present during interrogation but
outside of booth to provide barking in order to agitate the detainee and provide shock value. ,,678
• One interrogator who participated in the Khatani interrogation told the Committee
that he understood that dogs could be used in a manner consistent with the description in the
January 17, 2003 memo, i.e. they could be present during interrogation but outside the booth in
order to agitate Khatani and provide shock value. 679 The interrogator told the Committee that
during one of his shifts interrogating Khatani, an MP brought a dogto the outside of the room in
which the interrogation was taking place and that the MP got the dog to bark. 680 The interrogator
said that he did not ask the MP to do so and told the MP not to do it again.
(U) MAJ Burney, who was present for portions ofthe interrogation, testified to the Army
IGthat a dog was brought into the Khatani interrogation during late November or early
December an estimated "half dozen times.,,681 MAJ Burney testified:

672

Methods EmployedX-Ray lnte"ogation ISN 63 (January 17, 2003).

6iJ

Ibid.

674

Ibid.

67~ Written statement from MAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007).
676

Methods EmployedX-Ray Inte"ogation ISN 63 (January 17, 2003).

677

Ibid.

678

Ibid.

679

Committee staff interview of ITF-GTMO Interrogator (January 9, 2008); Methods EmployedX-Ray Inte"ogation

ISN 63 (January 17, 2003).
680

Committee staff interview of ITF-GTMO Interrogator (January 9, 2008).

681

Army IG, Interview of MAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006).

[The] dog was never allowed to bite the detainee but would be ordered to bark
loudly close to the detainee, to sort of sniff or muzzle the detainee, to put paws up
on the detainee. 682
(U) MAl Burney said that interrogators stopped using the dog "not because anybody had
necessarily objected to [the use ofthe dog]," but because ''the initial shock value had worn off"
and "it just wasn't felt to be effective anymore.,,683 None ofthe other witnesses interviewed by
the Committee stated that they were aware of a dog being brought into the interrogation booth.

who was present for portions of the interrogation, stated that at one point
during an in~, either a guard or an interrogator suggested that a dog be used to scare
Khatani. 684 _ s a i d that he informed Mr. Becker, who intervened before the dogs were
used. 685
(U) As discussed above, MG Miller told the Committee that dogs were present at Camp
X-Ray solely for securing the perimeter and that he was absolutely clear with ICE Chief David
Becker that dogs were not to be used in interrogations. 686 He testified to the Army IG that he
"rejected [using dogs in interrogations] as an acceptable technique" and that dogs "were not to be
used during active interrogation.,,687 In written answers to questions posed by Vice Admiral
Church, however, the Director for Intelligence, LTC Phifer stated that dogs were used in the
Khatani interrogation and that "We would bring the dog around to within 10 feet [of Khatani]
and he would be somewhat unnerved by it. We did it to keep him off balance as well as to
enhance security.,,688 Despite the testimony ofthe BSCT psychiatrist and LTC Phifer, Mr.
Becker stated that the Commander "refused to allow dogs" in interrogations while he was in
command of ITF-GTMO and told the Committee that dogs were not at the Khatani
interrogation. 689

VI.

JPRA's Assistance to Another Government Agency (U)

_
As the disagreement continued at GTMO about interrogation techniques being
used by military interrogators in the Khatani interrogation, JPRA was developing another
training session on the use of physical pressures and other interrogation techniques f o r _
interrogators. 690

682

Ibid.

683

Ibid.

684

Committee staff interview of

68~

Ibid.

686

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

Army !G, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (May 2,2006).

(August 13, 2007).

LTC Jerry Phifer written answers to Church Report Questionnaire (July 16, 2004). It is not clear from those
written answers whether the Director for Intelligence [Phifer] was referring to the use of dogs in the interrogation of
Khatani that began in November or the interrogation that took place in October 2003. See section B supra.

688

689

Army IG, Interview of David Becker (September 20, 2005) at 31.

690

Email from Christopher Witts to Joe Witsch, Gary Percival, and Terry Russell (November 12, 2002).

A Joint Staff Action Processing Form shows that_request was
endorsed by JPRA, JFCOM, Joint Staff, and the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy's office
and approved on November 12, 2002. 693 The Chief of JPRA's Operational Support Office
(OSO) Christopher Wirts "received the approved requirement [for training] from JFCOM DSSO
[Defense Sensitive Support Office] and [Joint Staff] DSSO" and subsequently informed three
JPRA personnel that the requirement for training included a lesson in "physical pressures,
techniques used in DoD [SERE] training" and "practical exercise[s] in interrogation and physical
pressures.,,694

~ The training took place at the
facility in mid-to-Iate November
2002. 6 Three JPRA personnel conducted the multi-day training session and Mr. Wirts attended
part of a one day session. 696 According to Joseph Witsch, the JPRA instructor who led the
training, the instructors followed the JFCOM and Joint Staff-approved requirement and
instructed_ interrogators on physical pressures used on students at SERE school. 697
_
The training session also included a demonstration of physical pressures. 698 This
was in accordance with the requirement, approved b~ JFCOM and Joint Staff, for "practical
exercise[s] in interrogation and physical pressures." 99 Mr. Witsch recalled that he "participated
in a couple ofthose demonstrations," which included role play sessions, where JPRA personnel
demonstrated the SERE physical pressur~ck interrogation[s].,,7oo Another JPRA
instructor, Terrence Russell, recalled t h a t ' " rather than JPRA, led the demonstration of
physical pressures. 701

692

Ibid.

693

Joint Staff Action Processing Form (November 12, 2002).

694

Email from Christopher Wirts to Joe Witsch, Gary Percival, and Terry Russell (November 12,2002).

69'

Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2008).

696

Ibid.

697

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,2007) at 37.

698

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 85.

699

Ibid.

700

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,2007) at 38.

701

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 85.

According to Mr. Russell, in the demonstration of one ofthose physical pressures,
su ested that to "enhance ... the ain threshold" ofa detainee bein laced in a
According to Mr. Russell: "I
thought that would be improper" because "[i]t would cause physical damage, permanent physical
damage to an individual. And I think that that would be totally inappropriate to do to anybody,
whether it's an American or a foreign detainee. We would not do something that would cause
permanent physical damage.,,703 The JPRA training team said they raised that concern with their
superiors when they returned from the trip.704 The senior SERE psychologist, Dr. Gary Per~
~icipated in the training session later described it as a "fiasco" and said that the_
_
and interrogators did not understand the concepts being taught. 70S
_
JPRA personnel also instructed_ interrogators on how to perform
waterboarding. 706 In his testi~he Committee, Mr. Witsch said that the JPRA instructors
"mentioned [waterboarding t o _ and how it's done, [and described] basic steps in order to
do it.,,707
_ N o n e ofthe JPRA personnel a t _ trainini had performed waterboarding or
70
were qualified to teach others how to perfonn the technique.
In fact, Mr. Witsch, who
described the technique t o _ at the training, testified that he did not recall all ofthe safety
limitations associated with waterboarding. 709 For example, he testified that he was not aware
that students at the U.S. Navy's SERE school could not be subjected to waterboarding for more
than twenty seconds, if a cloth is placed over the student's face. 71o The twenty second time limit

102

Ibid. at 128, 86.

703

Ibid. at 129.

704

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,2007) at 41.

705

Committee staff interview of Dr. Gary Percival (July 25,2007).

706

Testimony of Joseph Witseh (September 6, 2007) at 107.

707

Ibid. at 109.

Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2008); Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6,
2007) at 113·14

708

709

Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at 112-113.

FASO Detachment Bnmswick Instruction 3305.C, p. E-5 (January I, 1998) (emphasis in original)
("Water Board. **••• The student is subjected to interrogation while strapped to a specially rigged, flat, wooded
surface about four by seven feet with quick release bindings which will neither chafe nor cut when the student is
strapped to the board. Two canteen cups (one pint each) of water may be slowly poured directly onto the student's
face from a height of about twelve inches throughout the interrogation. No attempt will be made to direct the stream
of water into the student's nostrils or mouth. NO CHEST OR STOMACH pressure may be used to compel the
student to breath in any water. If a cloth is placed over the student's face, it will remain in place for a maximum
time of TWENTY seconds, with a hospital corpsman instructor holding 1he face cloth in place. The cloth may
be applied only twice in this manner to any given student. A student may be threatened at a later time with the water
board and may even be strapped to the board again but under no circumstances may water actually be applied. The
Watch Officer and a designated 9505 hospital corpsman shall be present whenever the water board is being used.
The water board demonstrates omnipotence of the captor. Once the tactic is used on a student, it may be used as a
credible threat. ")
710 _

was em~hasized in bold and in all capital letters in the Navy SERE school's instruction
manual. 11
_ _ After Mr. Witsch described how to waterboard,_ interrogators
proceeded to perform the technique on each other. 712 Another JPRA trainer, Terrence Russell,
said that it was a requirement t h a t _ interrogators experience the sensation of
waterboarding and that
staffran "ev bod throu a small e erience with the
waterboar in that the were
,,713 According to Mr. Russell,
~endured the waterboard for "very long."
The experience was "purely voluntary," and
_
interrogators "stayed there five seconds, ten seconds, thirty seconds," but not longer
than that. 715 Mr. Russell said that ifthe interroiitors''wanted to get off, they hopped off. But
they had to experience the sensation. That was
requirement.,,716

VII.

Secretary Rumsfeld Approves Interrogation Authorities, GTMO Plans to
Implement SERE Teclmiques (U)

Secretary ofDefense Authorizes Aggressive Techniques for use at GTMO

(U) On November 27, 2002, Mr. Haynes sent a memo to Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld recommending that the Secretary authorize the Commander of SOUTHCOM to
employ, at his discretion, all Category 1and II techniques and one Category III technique (''use
of mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and
light pushing") in the JTF-GTMO October 11,2002 request. 717
(U) Mr. Haynes's memo stated that he had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary of

Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and Chairman ofthe
Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Richard Myers and that they concurred with his
recommendation 718 According to Mr. Haynes, his recommendation came after the Secretary of
Defense expressed "some exasperation that he didn't have a recommendation" on the October
11,2002 GTMO request and told his senior advisors "1 need a recommendation.,,719

711

Ibid.

71l

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3.2007) at 87-88.

713

Ibid.

714

Ibid.

716

Ibid.

Action Memorandum from William J. Haynes II to Secretary of Defense, Counter-Resistance Techniques.
(November 27, 2002), approved by the Secretary of Defense on December 2, 2002 (hereinafter "Secretary of
Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2(02)").

717

718

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

719

Committee interview of William J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 193; SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08).

(U) Mr. Haynes's memo concluded that while "all Category III techniques may be legally

available, we believe that a blanket approval of Category III techniques is not warranted at this
time.,,720 While the CJCS, General Myers, said that he "did not recall seeing the November 27,
2002 memo before it was presented to the Secretary," his Legal Counsel, CAPT Dalton, said that
she and the Chairman were "satisfied with" the techniques that were recommended to the
Secretary for approval. 721 CAPT Dalton also said, however, that she did not think the statement
in the DoD General Counsel's memo that "all Category III techniques may be legally available"
''was an appropriate legal analysis.,,722 She did not raise that concern with the Chairman. 723
(U) Mr. Haynes stated that he "probably" read LTC Beaver's legal analysis ofthe request
prior to making his recommendation but that he could not recall his opinion of it. 724 He could
not recall whether he asked anyone on his staffto review or comment on the analysis or whether
his office conducted its own legal review. 725
(U) As discussed above, General HilI, the SOUTHCOM Commander, had requested in
his October 25,2002 memorandum that Department of Justice and Department of Defense
lawyers review Category III techniques included in the October 11, 2002 GTMO request. 726
While the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLe) had issued an opinion on
August 1, 2002 evaluating standards of conduct for interrogations required under the anti-torture
statute, Mr. Haynes testified in July 2006 that he "did not have a copy" ofthat opinion and that
the OLC "had not expressed a view [to him] at that time. 727 In April 2008, however, Mr. Haynes
stated that it was "very, very likely" that he had read the OLC opinion prior to making his
recommendation to the Secretary and recalled it being "very permissive.,,728 Two months later,
in June 2008, Mr. Haynes testified that he did not "remember when he ftrst read" the OLC
memo. 729 The General Counsel said that he did not know whether anyone in his office consulted
the Department of Justice about the October 11, 2002 GTMO request and he did not believe DOJ
reviewed the techniques "in the context of [the GTMO] request." 730
(U) Other than his November 27,2002 memo to Secretary Rumsfeld recommending that

the techniques be approved, Mr. Haynes said that he "did not write anything down" to support
71JJ

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002).

7Zl

Responses of General Richard Myers to April 16, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (April 30,
SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

2008)~
7'l2

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

72J

Ibid

rn Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 172.
7l'Ibid. .
726

GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques.

717 Confrrmation Hearing of William James Haynes II to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Senate Committee
on Judiciary, 10911> Congo (July II, 2006).

72lI

Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 175-177, 190.

129

Ibid. at 193~ SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

730

Committee staff interview ofWilliarn J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 175-177, 186.

his legal analysis. 731 GTMO Staff Judge Advocate Diane Beaver stated that she "fully expected"
that her legal review would be 'carefully reviewed by legal and policy experts at the highest
levels before a decision was reached" and was "shocked" that her opinion became the opinion
upon which the Department of Defense relied. 732 LTC Beaver stated that she did not expect that
her opinion "would become the final word on interrogation policies and practices within the
Department of Defense" and that for her "such a result was simply not foreseeable." 733 She
stated that she "did not expect to be the only lawyer issuing a written opinion on this
monumentally important issue" and that in hindsight, could not "help but conclude that others
chose not to write on this issue to avoid being linked to it.,,734
(U) Despite the fact that his memo recommended the Secretary of Defense authorize the
use of aggressive interrogation techniques including stress positions, deprivation of light and
auditory stimuli, hooding, removal of clothing, the use of dogs to induce stress, and pushing and
poking detainees, Mr. Haynes stated that he was not recommending blanket approval of other
aggressive techniques in the GTMO request (like the use of a wet towel and dripping water to
induce the misperception of drowning) because "Our Anned Forces are trained to a standard of
interrogation that reflects a tradition of restraint."735
(U) While several techniques included in the request were similar to techniques used in
SERE training and provided by JPRA to the General Counsel's office in the July 26,2002
memo, Mr. Haynes said that he did not "specifically recall" making a connection between the
request and SERE. 736 In comments submitted to the DoD IG's August 25,2006 report, the DoD
General Counsel's office even stated that "There is no evidence that SERE techniques were ever
adopted at Guantanamo or anywhere else.,,737 Those comments were submitted two years after
the SOUfHCOM Commander, General Hill, had said that "the staff at Guantanamo" had
traveled to "SERE school," where they "developed a list of techniques ..." and despite the fact
that some ofthe techniques in the October 11, 2002 GTMO request were specifically identified
as "those used in U.S. military interrogation resistance training.,,738
(U) Mr. Haynes said that he raised legal concerns about the October 11, 2002 GTMO
request with the Secretary prior to making his recommendation. 739 On December 2, 2002,
however, Secretary Rumsfeld approved Mr. Haynes's recommendation that SOUTHCOM be

731

Ibid. at 177.

m SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08).
7J3

Ibid.

734

Ibid.

735

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

736

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes IT (April 25, 2008) at 188.

137 Comment matrix, Legal Review ofDraft SECRETI/NOFORN DoD IG Report, 'Review ofDoD-Directed
Investigations ofDetainee Abuse (Project No. D2004-DINTOI-0174) (U). (June 8, 2006) at 8.
738 Media Availability with GEN Hill (June 3, 2004); MG Dunlavey to GEN Hill, Counter-Resistance Strategies
(October II, 2(02).
739

Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes IT (April 25, 2(08) at 170.

given authority to use all Categories I and II techniques and one Category III technique in
interrogations at GTMO. 740 In approving the techniques, the Secretary added a handwritten note
at the bottom of the memo that questioned one of the limitations in the ITF-GTMO request, 741
In reference to ''the use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours," the
Secretary wrote: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?,,742
•
Despite having previously approved the Khatani plan, which included a phase to
employ Category III techniques, MG Geoffrey Miller told the Committee that shortly after the
authorization was issued, he told the SOUTHCOM Commander that he did not intend to use the
Category III techniques at GTMO. 743
(U) However, following the Secretary of Defense's December 2,2002 authorization,
ITF-GTMO senior staffbegan developing standard operating procedures to implement stress
positions, stripping detainees, and non-injurious physical contact, such as pushing and poking
detainees, all of which were authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The CITF Special Agent in
Charge at GTMO, Timothy James, said that when he saw the Secretary's authorization, he was
"in shock" and that it "told us we had lost the battle.,,744

JTF-GTMO Develops Standard Operating Procedure (SOp) for the Use of
SERE Techniques in Interrogations (U)

111_ On December 14, 2002,just prior to a staff meeting, GTMO's Director for
Intelligence, LTC Phifer, gave Mr. James, the CITF Special Agent in Charge, a document
entitled "ITF-GTMO 'SERE' Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure" and asked for his
comments on the document. 745 The techniques described in the draft SOP, such as stress
positions, non-injurious physical contact, removal of clothing, and hooding, had all been
authorized by the Secretary of Defense on December 2, 2002. 746

11_

The Department of Defense provided the Committee with two versions of
the draft SERE SOP, one dated December 18, 2002 and another earlier undated draft. The draft
SOPs were based on the Navy SERE school manual. 747
(U) Under "purpose" both drafts of the SOP stated:

740

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

741

Ibid.

742

Ibid.

743

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

744

Committee staff interview of Timothy James (May 18, 2007).

74'

Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et a!' (December 17,2002).

746

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

747 JTF-GTMO "SERE" Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure (undated) (hereinafter "JTF-GTMO SERE
SOP (undated)"); JTF-GTMO "SERE" Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure (December 18, 2002);
(hereinafter "JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002)'').

This SOP document promulgates procedures to be followed by JTF-GTMO
personnel engaged in interrogation operations on detained persons. The premise
behind this is that the interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are
appropriate for use in real-world interrogations. These tactics and techniques are
used at SERE school to 'break' detainees. The same tactics and techniques can be
used to break real detainees during interrogation operations.
... Note that all tactics are strictly intended to be non-lethal. 748
(U) The December 18, 2002 draft stated that "interrogators will undergo training by
certified SERE instructors prior to being approved for use of any of the techniques described in
this document" and stated that the draft SOP was "applicable to military and civilian
interrogators assigned to Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.,,749

(U) In addition, the December 18, 2002 draft included a section describing "interrogation
control and safety" that listed safeguards to "avoid injuries to the detainee, especially his head
and/or neck" and stated that a "corpsman or medic should be onsite, and a doctor on-call should
medical care be necessary.,,750 The December 18,2002 draft was unsigned but contained
signature blocks for the JTF-GTMO's new ICE Chief, Lt Col Moss, the new JIG Commander,
COL Sanders, and the ITF-GTMO Commander, MG Miller.
Under "Degradation Tactics" the draft SOPs described the "shoulder slap,"
the "insult slap," the "stomach slap," and "stripfting," all of which were included in the Secretary
of Defense's December 2, 2002 authorization. 7 1
•
_
Regarding the shoulder slap, John Rankin, a Navy SERE Training Specialist
who reviewed the draft SOPs at the time, noted that the SOPs' description of the shoulder slap
differed from the technique as applied at the Navy SERE school. 752 The Navy instruction
,,753
manual described the shoulder slap
However, the draft GTMO SOPs described the shoulder slap as
,754
•
_
The draft SOPs described how to administer "insult slap[s]" and "stomach
slap[s]" to "shock and intimidate the detainee.,,755 The draft SOPs explained that the use of
"stripping" involved the "forceful removal of detainees' c1othing.,,756 The drafts also stated that
748

JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (undated); JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002).

749

JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002).

750

JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002).

m Ibid. JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (undated).
m Committee staff interview of John Rankin (September 25, 2007).
m FASO Detachment Brunswick Instruction 3305.C (January 1, 1998) (emphasis added).
754

JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (undated); JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002).

755

JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (undated); JTF-GTMO SERE SOP (December 18, 2002).

756

Ibid.

"[i]n addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the
omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.,,757

11II_

Under "Physical Debilitation Tactics" th~ draft SOPs described various
stress positions and said the purpose of using them was to" unish detainees."758 Among the
stress ositions listed was the "kneelin osition,'

_ _ The draft SERE SOPs described a number of other techniques including
hooding; "manhandling," described as "pulling or pushing a detainee," and ·'walling," described
as "placing a detainee forcibly against a specially constructed wall.,,762 According to the draft
SOPs, the purpose of walling was to "physically intimidate a detainee.,,763
(U) In an email sent shortly after the December 14, 2002 staff meeting where LTC Phifer
provided him the draft SOP, CITF Special Agent in Charge Timothy James said that LTC Phifer
briefed MG Miller and his staff on the draft SOP at the meeting. 764
• Several senior GTMO staff reviewed drafts ofthe GTMO SERE SOP. On December
14, LTC Beaver sent an email to LTC Phifer, U Col Moss (the newly arrived ICE Chief) and
members ofthe GTMO Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) proposing changes to the
draft SERE SOP. 765 LTC Beaver recommended:
[S]trictly prohibiting use of force to the head such as when detainee looks away.
Pressure to head and neck must be avoided. Guiding chin up with two fmgers for
example or using other techniques to make detainee comply. This would avoid
inadvertent injury... We can gain some control with use of pressure to shoulder
and arms or upper body and less charge of injury to face, neck or head. 766
7'7

Ibid.

7'8

Ibid.

7'9

Ibid.

760

Ibid.

761

Ibid.

762

Ibid.

763

Ibid.

764

Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et al (December 17, 2002).

76~ Email from LTC Diane Beaver to Lt Col Ted Moss and LTC Jerald Phifer (December 14, 2002).
766

Ibid.

(U) LTC Beaver later testified to the Committee that she might have recalled seeing a
SERE SOP at the time but that she "had nothing to do" with drafting the December 18, 2002
version of the SOP and did not participate at all in drafting it. 767

II On December 16, 2002, BSCT psychiatrist MAJ Paul Burney responded to LTC
Beaver's email, stating that "ifthese techniques are employed at GTMO, our training/preparation
must match that of the instructors who are allowed to use these same techniques at SERE
school.,,768 MAJ Burney described some ofthe requirements for SERE instructors, such as
having them "go through SERE school themselves," ''undergo strict psychiatric screening," and
be strictly supervised while doing their jobs at the SERE school. 769 MAJ Burney said that "there
are still times when instructors go a bit too far and have to be redirected by other instructors.
The SERE school takes this training VERY seriously. It clearly is not a see one, do one, teach
one kind of situation"770 The psychiatrist warned:
The environment down here is much different than at SERE school. There is not
a cadre of experienced SERE instructors. The interrogators have not gone
through SERE school or been subjected to this treatment themselves. There is not
a psychiatric screening process in place. The interrogators are away from home,
family, friends and are under a lot more stress than SERE instructors at the SERE
school. The detainees being questioned are the enemy and are not U.S. personnel
posing as the enemy... All these factors make using this kind of pressure much
more dangerous in this environment compared to at the SERE school. 771

_As

to the utility ofthe SERE resistance techniques, MAJ Burney also stated that "[i]t
is quite possible that employing these techniques exactly as employed in SERE school may
actually strengthen a detainee's ability to resist interrogation rather than overcome it."772 MAJ
Burney stated that he was "not suggesting that the use of physical pressures should be totally
abandoned," but recommended that they should bring an experienced senior SERE trainer to
GTMO to discuss the issue stating "the interrogation element feels these tools will greatly assist
the interrogations process. It would be very interesting to me to know if senior SERE trainers ...
agree with this assessment or not.,,773 MAJ Burney also recommended that, if ITF-GTMO
determined the techniques might be effective, then they should institute the same screening
processes that SERE schools use and that SERE school instructors be "sent to GTMO to help
with the interrogation process.,,774

767

SASC Hearing (June 17,2(08).

768

Email from MAl Paul Burney to LTC Diane Beaver (December 16, 2002).

769

Ibid.

770

Ibid.

771

Ibid.

7nIbid.
77.l

Ibid.

774

Ibid.

100

(U) Mr. Becker, the ICE Chief who left GTMO in December 2002, told the Committee
that prior to his departure he had begun drafting the SOP and had discussed it with LTC
Phifer. 775
(U) As discussed above, contemporaneous documents suggest that LTC Phifer gave a
copy ofthe draft SERE SOP to Timothy James, the CITF Special Agent in Charge, and briefed
the draft to a JTF-GTMO staff meeting. 776 LTC Phifer was also a recipient ofthe December 14,
2002 email from LTC Beaver that proposed changes to the draft SERE SOP.777 However, LTC
Phifer testified to the Army IG that he had "never heard of [the SOP] or saw [the SOP]."778 He
later told the Committee that he did not recall the SOP or the December 14, 2002 staff meeting
and said that he would not have been comfortable briefing the SOP. 779
(U) LTC Phifer was replaced on or about December 17, 2002 by COL Richard Sanders,
who was given the title of Joint Intelligence Group (nG) Commander. 780 COL Sanders, whose
signature block was included on the December 18, 2002 draft SERE SOP, did not recall seeing
the SOP, but said he vaguely recalled discussions about it. 781 Lt Col Moss, the new ICE Chief
whose signature block was also on the draft SERE SOP, told the Committee that he recalled the
draft SOP but that he never signed it. 782
(U) LTC Beaver told the Committee that she did not know who directed the development
ofthe SOP and could not recall whether she discussed it with MG Miller. 783 MAJ Burney told
the Committee that he recalled being provided a copy ofthe Navy SERE school's SOP but did
not recall seeing a document drafted by GTMO personnel. 784
IIDespite having approved an interrogation plan that included SERE techniques and
telling the Committee that, in the context ofthe Khatani interrogation, he was "willing to
consider" SERE tactics, MG Miller testified to the Army IG that the techniques in the SOP
''were too aggressive and not appropriate for use [at GTMO].,,785

(U) While a contemporaneous document suggests that LTC Phifer briefed MG Miller on
the SOP, MG Miller told the Army IG that the SOP was never brought to his attention and that
m Committee staff interview of David Becker (October 17, 2001).
716

Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et a1. (December 17, 2002).

Email from LTC Diane Beaver to Lt Col Ted Moss and LTC Jerald Phifer (December 14, 2002).

77'8

Army !G, Interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (March 16, 2006) at 9.

T79

Committee staff interview ofLTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007).

780

Ibid.

781

Committee staff interview of COL Richard Sanders (August 10, 2001).

782

Committee staff interview of LTC Ted Moss (October 17, 2001).

783

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2001).

784

Committee staff interview of MAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2001).

Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (March 28, 2006); Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller
(December 5,2007).

785

101

he had no knowledge of it. 786 MG Miller later told the Committee that he did not recall being
briefed on the draft SOP. 787 As noted above, he also told the Committee that he opposed stress
positions, removal of clothing, and the use of non-injurious physical contact - all techniques
described in the draft SERE SOP - and that he had made his opposition clear to his staff prior to
the time that the SOPs were drafted. 788
(U) In response to LTC Phifer's request for comments on the draft SERE SOP, CITF
raised concerns about the SOP verbally to LTC Phifer and drafted written comments about the
SOP. 789 A draft ofCITF's written comments (which they coordinated with FBI) was addressed
to LTC Phifer and stated:

[There is a] fundamental difference between the military and [CITF and FBI]
regarding which style of interrogation should be used... the military model is
based on SERE tactics ...llis school teaches coercion and aggressive
interrogation techniques as a way to "break" soldiers who are being trained in
methods to resist interrogation by a foreign power... [CITF and FBI~ believe
these techniques discourage, rather than encourage, detainee cooperation. 90
(U) CITF and FBI also argued that the use ofthe methods "only serves to reinforce" the
negative perception ofthe detainees toward Americans and would create "real potential for
mistreatment" of detainees. 791 CITF and FBI called the SERE techniques "unsuitable" and
"ineffective" and said there were "serious concerns about the legal implications ofthe
techniques.,,792
(U) On December 18, 2002, CITF Special Agent in Charge Timothy James sent an email
to Mr. Fallon stating "at this moment the ITF-GTMO staffis working the SOP issue, and [MG
Miller] will most likely make a decision in the next day or SO.,,793
(U) Individuals interviewed by the Committee stated that the SOP was never signed or
implemented at GTMO. 794 Less than two weeks after the December 18, 2002 draft SERE SOP
Email from CITF Special Agent in Charge (December 18, 2002); Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller
(March 28, 2006).

186

787

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

788

Ibid.

789

Committee staff interview of Timothy James (May 18, 2007).

Draft Memo from Timothy James to JTF-GTMO/J2, JTF-GTMO "SERE" Interrogation SOP DTD 10 Dec 02
(December 17, 2002). CITF Special Agent in Charge Timothy James told the Committee that he was sure he shared
CITF's concerns with LTC Phifer verbally and thought he gave LTC Phifer a memo documenting those concerns.
Committee staff interview of Timothy James (May 18, 2007).

?90

Draft Memo from Timothy James to JTF-GTMO/J2, JTF-GTMO "SERE" Interrogation SOP DTD 10 Dec 02
(December 17, 2002).

191

792

Ibid.

793

Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et a1. (December 18, 2002).

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007); Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey
Miller (December 6, 2007).

194

102

was written, however, two instructors from the Navy SERE school traveled to GTMO to train
interrogators on how to perform some ofthe physical pressures authorized by the Secretary of
Defense and contained in the draft SERE SOPs.

•

SERE School Trainers Provide Instructionfor GTMO Interrogators (U)

(U) On December 30, 2002, a SERE Training Specialist, John Rankin, and a SERE

Coordinator, Christopher Ross from the Navy SERE school in Brunswick, Maine arrived at
GTMOto "provide [ITF-GTMO Interrogation Control Element] personnel with the theory and
application ofthe physical pressures utilized during [Navy SERE school] training evolutions.,,795
U Col Moss told the Committee that his predecessor, Mr. Becker, had invited the SERE school
trainers to GTMO. 796 MG Miller told the Committee that he was aware ofthe visit. 797
(U) The trainers arrived on December 30, 2002 and met with Lt Col Moss and the ICE
Operations Officer. 798 Lt Col Moss told them that "a high level directive had initiated [their]
subsequent trip for the purpose of providing 'physical pressures' training." According to the
SERE Training Specialist, John Rankin, that directive was a letter from the Secretary of Defense
799
which was shown to him by Lt Col Moss.
Lt Col Moss also ~ave the two Navy SERE school
personnel a copy ofthe December 18,2002 draft SERE SOP. 80

(U) The next day, the two Navy SERE school instructors led training for GTMO
interrogators and other ICE personnel at Camp Delta.801 The training included instruction on
"Biderman's Principles," including lessons from a chart that was originally included in a 1957
article about how communists elicited false confessions. 802
(U) The training also consisted of both lectures and instruction on the application of
physical pressures. 803 The SERE Training Specialist John Rankin told the Committee that the
instructors showed interrogators how to administer the insult slap, the shoulder slap, the stomach
slap and demonstrated at least one stress position. 804 Mr. Rankin also said that they discussed the
795 Memorandum from John Rankin and Christopher Ross to Officer in Charge, FASOTRAGRULANf Det
Brunswick AfterAction Report Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay (JI'F-GTMO) Training Evolution (January IS,
2003) (hereinafter "AAR JI'F-GTMO Training Evolution (January IS, 2003)").
?96

Committee staff interview of David Becker (October 17, 2(07).

797

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

798

AARJI'F-GTMO Training Evolution (January 15,2003).

799

Committee staff interview of John Rankin (September 24, 2007).

800

Ibid

801

AARJI'F-GTMO Training Evolution (January 15,2003).

Ibid; Intelligence Science Board, Phase I Report: Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art
(December 2(06) at 316.

802

The Navy SERE instructors fIrst provided a lecture on "Biderman's Chart of Coercion," which described the
effects of various physical and psychological pressures on individuals in captivity. See AAR JI'F-GTMO Training
Evolution (January IS, 2003); Committee staff interviews of JTF-GTMO interrogators (July 12, 2007), (November
6, 2007), and (January 9, 2008).
803

804

Committee staff interview of John Rankin (September 24, 2007).

103

walling technique but did not demonstrate it because the facility lacked the specially constructed
wall used at SERE school.805 Two IfF-GTMO interrogators who attended the training stated
that, following the demonstration, the interrogators broke off into pairs and practiced slapping
each other. 806
(U) Two interrogators who attended the training said that they understood that the
techniques were available for interrogators to put in their ''toolbox."s07 One ofthose
interrogators recalled being told that if interrogators wanted to use the techniques, they would
need to notify their interrogation team chief. 808 A third interrogator who attended the training
told the Committee that he believed Lt Col Moss said the techniques could not be used while
they were pending approval.809
(U) The JIG Commander, COL Sanders, testified to the Army IG that he attended the
initial portion ofthe training and "made it quite clear, at least I believe I made it quite clear [to
the interrogators] ... the use of physical measures was not one ofthe things that we should
consider was appropriate and would not be fJermitted. ,,810 COL Sanders also testified that he
expressed the same concerns to MG Miller. 11 Those statements are inconsistent with the
recollections of others.
(U) Ofthe three interrogators interviewed by the Committee who attended the training,
none recalled COL Sanders making such a statement. 812 Lt Col Moss, the ICE Chief at the time,
did not recall COL Sanders being present at the training. 813 MG Miller told the Committee that
no one on his staff expressed concern to him about the training. 814
(U) On the morning of January 2,2003 the Navy SERE school personnel presented
additional instruction on interrogation fundamentals and resistance to interrogation. 815 Later that
day the instructors "presented an abbreviated theoretical physical pressures and peacetime
guidance (government and hostage) to Marine IfF-GTMO personnel and two IfF-GTMO Staff

80~

Ibid.

806

Committee staff interviews of JTF-GTMO interrogators (July 12,2007) and (January 9,2008).

807

Ibid.

808

Committee staff interview of ITF-GTMO interrogator (July 12, 2007).

809

Committee staff interview of ITF-GTMO interrogator (January 9,2008).

810

Army !G, Interview of COL Richard Sanders (March 14, 2006).

811

Ibid. at 6.

Committee staff interviews of JTF-GTMO interrogators (July 12,2007), (November 6,2007), and (January 9,
2008).

812

813

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007).

814

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

815

AARJI'F-GTMO Training Evolution (January 15, 2003).

104

Judge Advocate (SJA) officials.,,816 LTC Beaver told the Committee that she was not aware the
SERE instructors were coming to GTMO and did not attend any ofthe sessions. 817
(U) In the weeks following the Secretary of Defense's December 2,2002 authorization of
the interrogation techniques, word had spread that serious concerns were emerging about the
techniques. In mid-to-Iate December, prior to the SERE trainers' arrival at GTMO, General Hill,
the SOUTHCOM Commander, alerted MG Miller that a debate had ensued regarding the
Secretary's decision to authorize the techniques. 818
(U) Prior to their departure on January 3, 2003, the two Navy SERE instructors met with
MG Miller. 819 The GTMO Commander told the Committee that he informed the SERE
instructors, in the presence of his staff, that he did not want the techniques they had demonstrated
used in interrogations at GTMO. 820 Others who attended the meeting confIrmed the
Commander's account. 821 Mr. Rankin told the Committee that MG Miller said that he did not
want interrogators using techniques that might "bite them" later on.822

. _ _ Before leaving, Mr. Rankin provided a memo for the ICE Operations Chief
on the use ofphysical and psychological pressures during interrogations. The memo stated:
[The] use of physical and psychological pressures during interrogations, if
deemed appropriate, are tools that can be applied in order to establish and
reinforce [Biderman's] principles... these principles and associated pressures
allow the interrogation system to establish and maintain control of the
exploitation process... The application of physical pressures is only part of the
overall captive management process. They are initially used to shock and
intimidate by setting the stage and establishing control. There must be a
statement made by demonstrating there are rewards and punishments for
compliant and combative or resistive behavior.823

Navy General Counsel Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques,
Secretary Rums/eld Rescinds Authority (U)

(U) CITF had been established as a joint military organization composed of personnel
from the Anny Criminal Investigative Division (CID), the Naval Criminal Investigative Service
816

Ibid.

817

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2007).

818

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

819

AARJTF-GTMO Training Evo,lution (January 15, 2003).

820

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17,2007); Committee staff interview of John Rankin
(September 24, 2007); Committee staff interview of Christopher Ross (September 24, 2007).

821

822

Committee staff interview of John Rankin (September 24, 2007).

Memorandum from John Rankin to Captain Weis, Physical and Psychological Pressures During Interrogations
(January 3, 2003).

823

(NCIS), and Air Force Office of Special Investigations. While CITF's Commander COL Britt
Mallow was an Army Colonel assigned to CITF from CID, Deputy Commander Mark Fallon
was an NCIS civilian employee on detail to the CITF. While COL Mallow reported concerns
about ITF-GTMO interrogation techniques through his Army chain of command, Mr. Fallon also
brought the concerns to NCIS leadership. 824

(U) On December 17, 2002, two weeks after the Secretary authorized the interrogation
techniques for use at GTMO and with the Khatani interrogation underway, David Brant, the
NCIS Director infonned Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora about recent objections raised by
CITF. 825 The next day, Mr. Mora met with NCIS Chief Psychologist Dr. Michael Gelles, who
had been to GTMO and was familiar with the interrogation techniques in use there. Dr. Gelles
provided Mr. Mora excerpts of interrogation logs reflecting detainee mistreatment. Dismayed by
what he read and heard, Mr. Mora met with Steven Morello, the Army General Counsel, and for
the first time had the opportunity to review the October 11,2002 GTMO request, LTC Beaver's
legal analysis, and the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 authorization of interrogation
techniques for use in GTMO interrogations, which included stress positions, removal of clothing,
dogs, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, 20 hour interrogations, forced grooming, and
grabbing, pushi~ and poking detainees. 826 Mr. Mora testified to the Committee: "[W]hen I saw
the December 2 Rumsfeld memo, and then reviewed Lieutenant Colonel Beaver's legal
memorandum, when I saw that the memorandum was completely unbounded concerning the
limit of abuse that could be applied to the detainees, I knew instantaneously ... that this was a
flawed policy based upon inadequate legal analysis.,,827
(U) The following day, Mr. Mora briefed Navy Secretary Gordon England on the NCIS
report of detainee mistreatment and received authorization to meet with DoD General Counsel
Jim Haynes. 828 That afternoon, Mr. Mora met with Mr. Haynes and advised him that in his view
"some ofthe authorized techniques could rise to the level oftorture.,,829 He recalled urging the
DoD General Counsel to "think about the techniques more closely" questioning him "What did
'deprivation of light and auditory stimuli' mean? Could a detainee be locked in a completely
dark cell? And for how long? A month? Longer? What precisely did the authority to exploit
phobias pennit? Could a detainee be held in a coffm? Could phobias be applied until madness
set in?,,8~O

824

Responses ofMark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15, 2007).

Memo from Alberto 1. Mora to the Inspector General, Department of the Navy, Statementfor the Record: Office
ofGeneral Counsel Involvement in Interrogation Issues (July 7,2004) at 2-3 (hereinafter "Mora, Statementfor the
Record'').
825

The Army General Counsel also "demonstrated great concern with [the Secretary's] decision to authorize the
interrogation techniques." Army lawyers explained to the Navy General Counsel that they had "tried to stop" the
authorization "without success, and had been advised not to question the settled decision fwther." Mora, Statement
for the Record at 5-6.
826

827

SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08).

828

Mora, Statement for the Record at 7.

829

Ibid.

830

Ibid. at 7.

106

(U) Mr. Mora also urged Mr. Haynes not to rely on LTC Beaver's legal analysis,

characterizing it as "an incompetent product oflegal analysis.',s31 Mr. Mora left the meeting
feeling confident that the Secretary's authorization for interrogation techniques would be
suspended. 832
(U) More than two weeks later, on January 6,2003, the NCIS Director informed Mr.
Mora that the Secretary's December 2,2002 memo had not been suspended and that detainee
mistreatment was continuing at GTMO. 833 Two days later, Mr. Mora met with a Special
Assistant to both the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense and informed
him ofthe concerns. On January 9,2003, Mr. Mora met again with DoD General Counsel Jim
Haynes, warning him that the "interrogation policies could threaten Secretary Rumsfeld's tenure
and could even damage the presidency.',834 The Navy General Counsel also left Mr. Haynes
with a draft copy of a memo written by a Navy JAG Corps Commander, Stephen Gallotta. 835

In that memo, CDR Gallotta summarized and attached comments that the military
Services had submitted in November 2002 in response to the Joint Staff request. 836 CDR
Gallotta's memo also assessed the legality ofthe techniques, concluding that several ofthe
techniques "may violate the President's policy for the treatment of detainees," may violate
international legal standards, and may violate the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340)
and various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).837

II In his January 9,2003 memo, CDR Gallotta concluded:
Category III techniques that threaten death to the detainee or his family (#1) or
which create the misapprehension of suffocation (#3) would likely be judged to
constitute torture under the statute and customary intemationallaw. They reflect
conduct specifically defmed as torture in [18 U.S.C.] § 2340 and recognized as
torture in international law. Category III, technique #4, mild, non-injurious
grabbing and poking, is an assault under the UCMJ. Absent lawful purpose, these
techniques may be per se unlawful.
Category II techniques could also, depending in their implementation, i.e.,
frequency of use, degree of pain inflicted, or combinations of techniques, rise to a
831

Ibid.

832

Ibid. at 8.

833

Ibid. at 9.

834 A series of meetings followed between Mr. Mora and senior officials, where Mr. Mora reiterated his concerns.
Mr. Mora met with the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff CAPT Jane Dalton, the Service
General Counsels and senior Judge Advocates General, Army General Counsel Steven MoreUo, Air Force General
Counsel Mary Walker, and the DoD Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel DeU'Orto. Ibid. at 13- 14.
83'

Ibid. at 10.

Memo by CDR Stephen Gallotta, Counter-Resistance Techniques (January 9, 2003). The Services raised legal
concerns about many of the Categories II and ill techniques and called for further legal review of the proposal. See
Section IV D, supra.

836

837

Gallotta, Counter-Resistance Techniques (January 9, 2003).

107

level where they could be detennined to be torture. Thus, additional analysis with
specific guidance for implementation is recommended. 838

(U) On January 15,2003, "uncertain whether there would be any change to the
interrogation policy," Mr. Mora delivered a draft memorandum to Mr. Haynes stating that "the
majority of the proposed category II and all of the proposed category III techniques were
violative of domestic and international legal norms in that they constituted, at a minimum, cruel
and unusual treatment and, at worst, torture.,,839 In a phone call that same day, Mr. Mora told the
DoD General Counsel that he intended to sign the memo that afternoon ifhe had not heard that
the Secretary's December 2, 2002 memo for interrogation techniques had been or was being
suspended. 84o According to Mr. Mora, Mr. Haynes indicated during their conversations that
"Secretary Rumsfeld was 'considerin~' rescinding the interrogation techniques he had previously
authorized for use in Guantanamo.,,84 In light of Mr. Mora's draft memo, Mr. Haynes also
indicated that he would inquire further about the "Secretary's promise to 'consider' the
withdrawal ofthe interrogation techniques.,,842 Mr. Haynes called Mr. Mora later that day to tell
him the Secretary had suspended his authorization for interrogation techniques. 843
(U) On January 15,2003, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum for GEN Hill,
the SOUTHCOM Commander, rescinding blanket authority for one Category III and all
Category II techniques at GTMO. 844 GEN Hill said that Secretary Rumsfeld had called him days
before fonnally rescinding authority for the techniques on January 15,2003 and asked whether
the interrogation should continue. GEN Hill said that he told the Secretary that he "would
discuss the question with MG Miller, did so that day and reported back to [Secretary Rumsfeld]
recommending we continue the interrogation. ,,845 According to GEN Hill, Secretary Rumsfeld
agreed at that time that the interrogation should continue but subsequently called him back and
directed that it be stopped. 846
(U) Just days after the Secretary of Defense rescinded authority for ITF-GTMO to use the
interrogation techniques he had authorized in December, CITF's Deputy Commander Mark
Fallon and NCIS Chief Psychologist Michael Gelles met with MG Miller to discuss their
concerns about interrogation approaches. Mr. Fallon said MG Miller was "dismissive" oftheir
838

Ibid.

839

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 14.

840

Ibid. at 15.

841

Mora responses to questions for the record from SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

842

Ibid.

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 15; see also Mora responses to questions for the record from SASC Hearing
(June 17, 2(08) ("At no time did Mr. Haynes give me any indication that the techniques had been previous
rescinded. Had his been the case, Mr. Haynes could have simply informed me of the fact upon our f1!St conversation
that day.").
843

Memo from the Secretary of Defense to Commander USSOUTHCOM, Counter-Resistance Techniques (January
15,2003) (hereinafter "SECDEF memo to CDR SOUTHCOM (January 15,2003)").

844

84'

GEN James Hill answers to July 31,2008 written questions (August 20, 2008).

846

Ibid.

108

concerns and reported that the GTMO Commander said "'you have got to put on the same jersey
if you want to be on the team. ",847
_Following the Secretary's rescission, Khatani was moved out of Camp X_Ray.848
Beginning on January 15,2003 only Category I techniques were used in his interrogation.
Category I techniques included yelling and techniques of deception. An April 19, 2003 memo
from MG Miller the GTMO Commander said that on A ril 9 2003

" interrogators and analysts attributed his cooperation to his failing a polygraph test,
his being told that his information was becoming less important because other members of al
Qaeda were cooperating, and interro~ators informing Khatani that release or repatriation to Saudi
Arabia depended on his truthfulness. 50

E. National Security Council (NSC) Principals Discuss DoD Interrogations
(U) In a June 9, 2008 letter to the DoJ Inspector General, John Bellinger the former NSC
Legal Advisor, stated that he "repeatedly asked the Defense Department about conditions and
detention policies at Guantanamo Bay" and that he "specifically raised concerns about
interrogations practices used at Guantanamo, including concerns raised by the Department of
Justice. ,,851
(U) Mr. Bellinger told the Committee that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce
Swartz raised concerns with him "about allegations of abuse of detainees at Guantanamo.,,852
Mr. Bellinger said that Mr. Swartz called him on "several occasions" to express his concerns and
that, in response, he "raised these concerns on several occasions with DoD officials and was told
that the allegations were being investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.,,853 He
said that then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice "convened a series of meeting of
NSC Principals in order to ensure that concerns about conditions and other issues relating to
Guantanamo were fully discussed with the Department of Defense and other agencies.,,854

(U) Secretary Rice confIrmed Mr. Bellinger's account, stating that he advised her "on a
regular basis" regarding concerns and issues relating to Department of Defense detention policies
and practices at Guantanamo. 855 She said that, as a result she "convened a series of meetings of
847

Responses of Mark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15,2006) at 16.

Memo from Major General Geoffrey Miller to Commander, U. S. Southern Command., Techniques Used on ISN
63 Since 15 January 2003 (S) (April 19, 2003).

848

849

Ibid.

8~O

Ibid.

8~1 Letter from John Bellinger, III to Glenn Fine (June 9, 2008).

m John Bellinger answers to July 31,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12, 2008).
8~3

Ibid.

8~4

Ibid.

8~~ Condoleezza Rice answers to July 31,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 12,2008).

109

NSC Principals in 2002 and 2003 to discuss various issues and concerns relating to detainees in
the custody ofthe Department ofDefense.,,856

VIII. New Interrogation Policy Developed for GTMO (U)
(U) When he rescinded authority for GTMO to use aggressive interrogation techniques,
Secretary Rumsfeld directed the DoD General Counsel to set up a "Detainee Interrogation
Working Group" within the Department "to assess the legal, policy, and operational issues
relating to the interrogations of detainees held by the United States Armed Forces in the war on
terrorism.,,857
(U) Two days later, on January 17,2003, Mr. Haynes directed Air Force General Counsel
Mary Walker to convene the Working GrOUp.858 Per the Secretary's guidance, the Working
Group was comprised of representatives from the Office ofthe Undersecretary ofDefense
(Policy), the Defense Intelligence Agency, the General Counsels ofthe Air Force, Army, and
Navy, and Counsel to the Commandant ofthe Marine Corps, the Judge Advocates General ofthe
Air Force, Army, and Navy, the Staff Judge Advocate for the Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff
Legal Counsel and the Joint Staff Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy (15).859

The Working Group Solicits Information on Interrogation Techniques

(U) As Working Group participants began considering issues relating to interrogations of
detainees, they sought information on interrogation techniques to evaluate. Within the first two
weeks, Working Group participants solicited information about interrogation techniques from the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Combatant Commands. 860

The Defense InteUigence Agency Provides Information on SpecifIC
Interrogation Techniques (U)

(U) The Working Group's principals and their action officers met for the frrst time on
January 23,2003. 861 At that meeting, the Working Group received a briefing from the DIA
856

Ibid.

857 Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense for the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Detainee
Interrogations (January 15, 2003). In this memo, the Secretary also directed the Working Group to address the
"[l]egal considerations raised by interrogation of detainees held by US. Armed Forces;" "[p]olicy considerations
with respect to the choice of interrogation teclmiques, including contribution to intelligence collection, effect on
treatment of captured US. military personnel, effect on detainee prosecutions, [and] historical role of US. armed
forces in conducting interrogations;" and "[r]ecommendations for employment of particular interrogation teclmiques
by DoD interrogators."

Memorandum from Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes to Air Force General Counsel
Mary Walker, Working Group to Assess Legat Policy, and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation of

858

Detainees Held by the

u.s. Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (January 17, 2003).

859 Department of Defense, Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism:
Assessment ofLegal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations (April 4, 2003); Memorandum from the
Secretary of Defense for the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Detainee Interrogations (January 15,
2003).
860

Proposed Agenda, Working Group Meeting (January 23, 2003).

861

Church Report at 124.

110

about specific interrogation techniques. 862 A proposed agenda for the first Working Group
meeting tasked David Becker with providing an overview of interrogation techniques to the
Group. 863

• Mr. Becker, the former JTF-GTMO Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief, had
recently returned from GTMO to a civilian job at DIA Mr. Becker told the Committee that he
discussed interrogation operations as well as particular interrogation techniques with the
Working Group's senior JAG officers and their civilian counterparts. 864 He told the Committee
that he was asked about aggressive techniques and was encouraged to talk about techniques that
inflict pain. 865 He also said that he advised the Working Group to consider SERE resistance
training techniques. 866

_The

Working Group tasked DIA with providing a list of interrogation techniques and
their effectiveness so that the Group could assess their legality.867 DIA relied on Mr. Becker to
produce that list. 868

II Mr. Becker compiled a list of 36 techniques for the Working GrOUp.869 The list
included techniques from Army Field Manual 34-52; techniques from Category II ofthe October
11, 2002 GTMO request, including stress positions, isolation, deprivation of light and auditory
stimuli, hooding, 20 hour interrogations, forced grooming, and use ofphobias, such as dogs; and
862

Ibid.; Proposed Agenda, Working Group Meeting (Janwuy 23, 2003).

863

Proposed Agenda, Working Group Meeting (Janwuy 23, 2(03).

864

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

865

Ibid.

Ibid. The proposed agenda for the Working Group meeting (dated Janwuy 23,2003) includes handwritten
comments that reflect a discussion about "All [service] SEER [sic] guidelines" and "techniques." Since this
document was produced to the Committee as a part of the source materials collected by VADM Church for his
report, the Committee cannot determine whether these handwritten comments are those of a Working Group
participant or VADM Church's team. Proposed Agenda, Working Group Meeting (Janwuy 23, 2(03).

866

867.

Proposed Agenda, WorJcing Group Meetifll,panwuy 23, 2003); (U) Proposed Detainee Interrogation
Working Group Responsibilities (Initial) (Undated). DlA's role was described in the memo as, "List, describe
and assess the effectiveness of all interrogation techniques that may be effective in obtaining useful information
from detainees in the war on terrorism. Suggest relevant policy considerations affecting each."

868

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

869 . . Committee

staff interview of David Becker (September 17,·2007). The 36 techniques included Direct,
Incentive, Emotional Love, Emotional Hate, Fear Up Harsh, Fear Up Mild, Decreased Fear, Pride and Ego Up, Pride
and Ego Down, Futility, We Know All, Establish Your Identity, Repetition Approach, File and Dossier, Mutt and
Jeff, Rapid Fire, Silence, Change of Scenery, Use of Stress Positions, Use of Falsified Documents and Reports, Use
of Isolation Facility, Interrogating Detainees in an Environment other than the Standard Interrogation Booth,
Deprivation of Light and Auditory Stimuli, Hooding, Use of 20-Hour Interrogations, Switching the Detainee from
Hot Rations to MREs, Removal of All Comfort Items, Forced Grooming, Use of Detainee Phobias, Use of Scenarios
Designed to Convince the Detainees that Death or Severely Painful Consequences are Imminent, Exposure to Cold
Weather or Water, Use of a Wet Towel and Dripping Water, Use of Mild, Non-Injurious Physical Contact, Use of
Drugs, Use of Female Interrogators, and Sleep Deprivation. Defense Intelligence Agency memo, List, describe and
assess the effectiveness ofaU interrogation techniques that may be effective in obtaining useful informationfrom
detainees in the war on terrorism. Suggest relevant policy considerations affecting each (undated) (hereinafter "List
of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA.")

111

all four techniques from Category III ofthe GTMO request, i.e., use of scenarios to convince the
detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent, exposure to cold weather or
water, use ofa wet towel and dripping water, and the use of mild, non-injurious physical
contact. 870 Mr. Becker also listed three "less common techniques" for the Working Group's
consideration, i.e., use of drugs, use of female interrogators, and sleep deprivation. ,,871 Mr.
Becker's memo identified each technique, assessed its effectiveness, and in some instances, also
assessed legal and policy considerations. 872

_ _ Mr. Becker's memo stated that the Category III techniques from the
October 11,2002 GTMO request were '"the most aggressive and controversial" techniques. 873
Mr. Becker stated that the techniques were "currently used against U.S. soldiers in SERE
schools, with their consent," but that they would "not comport with the Geneva Conventions" if
applied to Prisoners of War (POWs). 874 His memo recommended that the Working Group
conduct a policy review on the "reciprocity of treatment of captured U.S. personnel" before
implementing any ofthe Category III techniques. 87s Mr. Becker said that attorneys who
consulted with him on the memo added this recommendation. 876
_ _ Mr. Becker's memo state~mayhave already been using the
Category III techniques and stated t h a t _ h a d apparently obtained assistance from
JPRA 81'7 He wrote:

These [Category III] techniques may be employed b Y . against the
detainees they have in custody overseas. We understand
office of the
General Counsel did a legal review and established a fmdin similar to the Ie al
review of the GTMO SJA.

The U.S.
military uses standardized SOPs and training in their SERE schools. The SOPs
establish the necessary checks and oversight that make SERE training both safe
and effective. If adopted, those same standards should be applied when
List of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA. In describing one technique - use of mild, non
injurious physical contact - the ICE Chief explained that "[i]ssues such as grabbing and poking have very minimal
policy issues and playa part in the interrogator's efforts to be sincere. Other non-injurious contact such as a face
slap or stomach slap are effective in gaining compliance and are used at SERE school. UCMJ policy issues should
be resolved. "

870 _

871

List of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA.

812

Ibid.

87J

Ibid. at 3.

874

Ibid.

875

Ibid.

876

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

m List of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA at 3.

112

interrogating detainees in the GWOT. The SERE SOPs should resolve most of
the policy issues regarding the use of the Category [III] counter-resistance
878
tec hni ques.
_ _ In describing one Category III technique - "use of a wet towel and
dripping water" - Mr. Becker's memo stated that the technique is "very effective," butthat there
are "wide ranging policy issues.,,879 According to the memo, "[t]his particular method is no
longer in use at SERE schools, but a similar method, called the waterboard, is v~ive and
it is understood that the waterboard is one ofthe techniques used with effect b~
.
,,880
mterrogators.
_ _ As to the three "less common techniques" in his memo - use of drugs,
use of female interrogators, and sleep deprivation - Mr. Becker stated that "interrogation
approaches are limited only by the imagination of interrogators" and that it would be "impossible
to list every possible interrogation approach. ,,881 His memo stated that "drugs such as sodium
pentothal and demerol may be used with some effectiveness," that female interrogators could be
used to make the detainee feel "unclean," and that "sleep deprivation" can be effective. 882 Mr.
Becker told the Committee that he based his statement about the effectiveness ofthe use of drugs
on a rumor that _
had used drugs in their interrogation program.883

The Working Group Soli.cits Information About Interrogation
Techniques From CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM (U)

_
In addition to asking DIA for a list of interrogation techniques, the Working
Group also requested that the Joint Staff provide a list oftechniques "currently in effect or
previously employed in CENTCOM and SOlJfHCOM, techniques the combatant commanders
have found to be effective, and techniques the combatant commanders desire to implement with
. ratlOna
. I e. ,,884
accompanymg
_ _ SOUTHCOM relied on the ITF-GTMO Commander to respond to the
Joint Stafftasking. MG Miller sent SOUfHCOM Commander General Hill a memo on January
I7ll

Ibid.

879

Ibid.

880

Ibid.

882._
881

Ibid. at 4.

"[I] Use of Drugs: Drugs such as sodium pentothal and demerol may be used with some
effectiveness. Significant policy issues must be resolved. [2] Use of Female Interrogators: One al-Qaida resistance
method is to pray during interrogations. Prayer is only allowed if the detainee is 'clean.' Having a woman rub
scented oil on the detainee's arms and face makes the detainee perceive that he is unclean and he cannot pray until
he cleans himself, which he is unable to do until he returns to his cell. The use of female interrogators to put oil on a
detainee does not exceed limits already established by DoD policy or the Geneva Conventions. [3] Sleep
Deprivation: This can be effective; however there are obvious policy considerations. Guidelines as to the use of
sleep deprivation would have to be established." List of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA at 4.

88:J

Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007).

Proposed Detainee Interrogation Working Group Responsibilities (Initial) (undated) at I; Proposed Agenda,
Working Group Meeting (January 23, 2003).

884

113

21, 2003 on the effectiveness oftechniques that had been rescinded by the Secretary of Defense
earlier that month. 885 In his memo, MG Miller stated that "[t]he command must have the ability
to conduct interrogations using a wide variety oftechniques" and listed nine techniques as
"essential to mission success." Those nine included use of an isolation facility; interrogating the
detainee in an environment other than the standard interrogation room at Camp Delta such as
Camp X-Ray; varying levels of deprivation of light and auditory stimuli to include the use ofa
white room for up to three days; the use of up to 20-hour interrogations; the use of a hood during
transportation and movement; removal of all comfort items (including religious items); serving
of meals ready to eat (MREs) instead of hot rations; forced grooming, to include shaving of
facial hair and head; and the use of false documents and reports. 886
_
MG Miller's January 21, 2003 memo stated that he believed that those nine
techniques were lawful and stated:
These techniques are not intended to cause gratuitous, severe, physical pain or
suffering or prolonged mental harm, but are instead intended to induce
cooperation over a period of time by weakening the detainee's mental and
physical ability to resist. 887

_MG

Miller attached another memo to his January 21,2003 memo for General
Hill. That attached memo, also dated January 21, 2003 and entitled "Methods Employed X-Ray
Interrogation ofISN 63," bore the same title as a memo dated January 17,2003. (The earlier
memo is described in detail above). Despite describing the same events and being written just
days apart, the January 21, 2003 and the January 17,2003 memos contain substantive
differences.
Several interrogation techniques that the January 17, 2003 memo
identified as techniques used in the Khatani interrogation were omitted from the January 21,
2003 version. Among the techniques left out ofthe latter memo were "fhysical posturing,"
"search/strip search," and the presence of"K-9 military police" dogs. 88 In addition, the
description of certain techniques differed in the two versions ofthe memo. For example, in the
latter version, "denial of prayer" was removed and replaced with "postponement of prayer" and

88' Memo from MG Geoffrey Miller for Commander, u.s. Southern Command, Effectiveness ofthe Use ofCertain
Category n COWJter-Resistance Strategies (January 21,2003) (hereinafter "MG Miller memo, Effectiveness of
Certain Category II Strategies (January 21,2(03)").

886.MG Miller, Effectiveness ofCertain Category II Strategies (January 21,2003). Although MG Miller
identified only nine "essential" techniques on January 21,2003, a subsequent memo sent by the SOUfHCOM
Commander GEN Hill called all the Category II and the one Category ill technique (non-injurious physical contact
such as poking and pushing) that the Secretary had authorized in December "critical to maximizing our ability to
accomplish the mission, now and in the future." See Church Report at 135 and Section VIII D, infra.
887

MG Miller, Effectiveness ofCertain Category II Strategies (January 21,2003).

888 Methods EmployedX-Ray Inte"ogation ISN 63. (January 17, 2003); Methods EmployedX-Ray Inte"ogation
ISN 63 (S) (January 23, 2003), attached to MG Milr;-'memo, Effectiveness ofCertain Category II Strategies

(January 21, 2003).

114

reference to the
was omitted.889

to deny him the ability to pray

II CENTCOM sent the Working Group's request for a list oftechniques to CJTF-180, in
Afghanistan. In response, LTC Robert Cotell, the CJTF-180 Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)
produced a memo on January 24, 2003 describing "current and past" interrogation techniques
used by CJTF-180 interrogators.890 LTC Cotell' s memo was sent to the Working Group and to
the Office ofthe Secretary ofDefense. 891
_ _ LTC Cotell's January 24, 2003 memo stated that "[p]rior to their rescission,
CJTF-180 used selected techniques contained in SOlITHCOM's [Category] II and III
techniques.,,892 He identified interrogation techniques used by CJTF-180, including upto 96
hours of isolation; the use of female interrogators to create "discomfort" and gain more
information; sleep adjustment, defined as "four hours of sleep every 24 hours, not necessarily
consecutive;" use of individual fears; removal of comfort items; use of safety positions;
isolation; deprivation of li~t and sound in living areas; the use of a hood during interrogation;
and mild physical contact. 3 Several ofthese techniques were similar to those approved by the
Secretary of Defense for use at GTMO in December 2002. CJTF-180 had obtained a list ofthose
GTMO techniques prior to the time that LTC Cotell had drafted his January 24, 2003 memo. 894
_ _ The January 24, 2003 memo also recommended use of five additional
techniques, including "deprivation of clothing" to put detainees in a "shameful, uncomfortable
situation;" "food deprivation;" "sensory overload -loud music or temperature regulation;"
"controlled fear through the use of muzzled, trained, military working dogs;" and ''use of light
and noise deprivation,,895
(U) LTG John Abizaid, the Deputy Commander (Forward) u.s. Central Command,
stated that the January 24, 2003 memorandum "was thoroughly reviewed" by the Working
Group. 896

889

Ibid.

Church Report at 1g"/; Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques
(January 24, 2003) at 1.

890

891US Central Command Action Processing Form, Approvalfor the Use ofCertain Interrogation Techniques in
CJTF-180's AOR (April 4, 2003); Memorandum from GEN John P. Abizaid to VADM Church, Responses to
Requestfor Informationfrom VADM Church (August 6,2004).
892

Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques (January 24,2003) at 1.

m Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques (January 24,2003) at 8.
The Church Report called the distinction between stress positions and safety positions at the Bagram Collection
Point "largely academic." Church Report at 200.

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002); Memo from LTC Robert
Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at 1.

894

89' Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Interrogation Techniques (January 24,2003) at 1,
4-5, and 9.
Memorandum from GEN John Abizaid to VADM Church, Responses to Requestfor Informationfrom VADM
Church (August 6, 2004).

896

115

The Working Group Requests Informalionfrom JPRA (U)

(U) The Working Group also sought information on interrogation techniques from the
SERE community. On January 30, 2003, MAJ Nick Lovelace, an action officer at the Joint Staff
Directorate for Intelligence (J2), contacted JPRA on behalf ofthe Working GroUp.897
_
MAJ Lovelace called Mr. Joseph Witsch, the JPRA instructor who had previously
conducted training for
and had served as Team Chief at the September 2002
training for GTMO interrogators and behavioral science personnel at Fort Bragg. 898
_
MAJ Lovelace requested material from JPRA "identifYing interrogation
techniques and methodologies used by the SERE community.,,899 According to Mr. Witsch,
MAJ Lovelace had already received information from the Army SERE school, but he described
the information provided as "insufficient for his tasking.,,900

_Mr.

Witsch advised MAJ Lovelace that information on interrogation techniques
had already been provided to the Department of Defense General Counsel and to the DIA and he
suggested that the Joint Staffaction officer coordinate with them. 901 MAJ Lovelace indicated,
however, that he was familiar with those materials but that he was looking for "more detail on
exact procedures, techniques, and constraints" than had already been provided. 902
_
MAJ Lovelace's request on behalf ofthe Working Group prompted a discussion
at JPRA about the advisability of providing "SERE school methodology in support ofthe
GWOT" to the Working Group and other organizations. 903 In an email to JPRA Chief of Staff
Daniel Baum~artner, Mr. Witsch expressed four "serious concerns" about sharing the requested
information. 904
_ _ First among his concerns was the potential effect that sharing SERE
school techniques could have on the training of American personnel. Mr. Witsch wrote:
Open source intel and media is flooded with what the USG/OGAs and DOD are
currently doing with [Designated Unlawful Combatants (DUCs)]. How long will
it take before we see some discussion on SERE school methods and techniques
being used to interrogate DUCs. I'll take bets that it will occur in days and weeks

897

Email from Joseph Witsch to Lt Col Dan Baumgartner (January 30, 2003).

898

Ibid.

The Joint Staff action officer stated that they needed the information immediately, since the" blue ribbon panel'
organized by the AF General Counsel" intended to "work through the weekend to meet this immediate
requirement." Email from Joseph Witsch to Dan Baumgartner (January 30, 2003).
899

900

Ibid.

901

Ibid.

902

Ibid.

90J

Ibid.

904

Email from Joseph Witsch to Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner (January 31,2003).

versus months! It ain't healthy for our operators to expose how we prepare them
to deal with interrogation and captivity in open source media. 905
_ _ Second, Mr. Witsch stated that the SERE techniques violated national
and international laws. He wrote:
Our training is based on simulating our captors' passed [sic] performance while
tapering the physical/psychological severity and harm to our students. The
physical and psychological pressures we apply in training violate national and
international laws. We are only allowed to do these things based on permission
from DOD management and intense oversight by numerous organizations within
DOD. I hope someone is explaining this to all these folks asking for our
techniques and methodology! 906
His third concern was that a lack of proper oversight could give rise to
significant drift, which, in tum, could pose a risk of investigation and exposure ofthe
organization. Mr. Witsch asked:
What do you think is more than likely to happen when one of these organizations
gets exposed and because of significant 'drift' and a lack of oversight they go
beyond what we do in the SERE schools? The first question will be 'Where did
you get your guidance?' Then we get investigated and exposed []. 907

_ _ Mr. Witsch's fourth concern was that JPRA would have no control over
how the information would be used. He asked:
What's been handed out in hard copy and electronically from [] us and the SERE
community to meet numerous requests from everybody? We use [sic] to have
some general idea when we were dealing with primarily the SERE community.
Now it's anybody's ~ess where the JTTP has gone and how it's being
incOq>orated and used. 9 8
_ _ Mr. Witschadded:

I know this is cool stuff and may provide some utility when dealing with DUCs.
I'm not saying that we should totally remove ourselves from this endeavor. We
must get a handle on all these people seeking information on our stuff within the
USG and DOD and control the amount [of] exposure our SERE
community/programs are getting. TIlis is getting out of control! ,909

905

Ibid.

906

Ibid.

907

Ibid.

908

Ibid.

909

Ibid.

_
Lt Col Baumgartner recalled that he managed to delay providing information to
the Working Group, but that JPRA later briefed The Judge Advocate General ofthe Air Force,
who was a member of the Working Group, on SERE techniques, including physical pressures. 910

Department ofJustice OffICe ofLegal Counsel's Analysis Is Presented As
Controlling Authority (U)

(U) At the initial meeting ofthe Working Group, in addition to a briefing from the DIA,
participants also received a briefing from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC).911 Despite the Secretary's guidance 'that the Working Group assess the legal issues
relating to the interrogations of detainees, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, who knew that the
OLC "had already done some work" on the issues, re~uested that the OLC produce a legal
opinion to guide the Working Group's deliberations. 9 2
(U) In the early stages ofthe Working Group's deliberations, Working Group members
had set out to develop their own legal analysis and utilize that analysis in the evaluation of
interrogation techniques. 913 A draft ofthat analysis, dated January 25, 2003, was shared with the
DoD General Counsel's office and the OLC. 914
_
The draft reviewed U.S. obligations under international law and concluded that
"obligations under the Torture Convention ... apply to the interrogation of Operation Enduring
Freedom detainees ... ,,915 The draft analysis also included a review of articles ofthe UCMJ and
other U.S. legal standards that were potentially applicable to U.S. interrogators. For example,
the analysis found that unlawful force used against a detainee could constitute an offense under
Article 128 (assault) ofthe UCMJ, and stated that assault:
May be interpreted to include unreasonably offensive poking, slapping, hitting,
prodding, or pushing. Hooding not likely included if used for security reasons.
Offensive touching would also include more severe techniques (e.g., wet towels,
hand cuffing) if not inherent and necessary to custodial conduct. 916
_ T h e draft analysis also assessed the legality ofthe techniques that had been
requested for approval by GTMO in October 2002, including some ofthose that the Secretary of
Defense had approved for use at GTMO in December 2002. In its draft, the Working Group
910 Committee staff interview of Lt Col Dan Baumgartner (August 8, 2007); See Section vm F, infra.

911 Church Report at 124; ProposedAgenda, Working Group Meeting (January 23, 2003).
912 Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense for the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Detainee
Interrogations (January 15, 2003); Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes IT (April 25, 2008) at 250;
Hearing on the Nomination of William James Haynes IT to be US. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, US. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (July 11, 2006) at 14.

913 Church Report at 124.
914_Committee staff interview of Eliana Davidson (February 21,2008); Detainee Interrogations: Survey of
Legal and Policy Considerations (draft) (undated). The Department of Defense allowed the Committee to review
this document, but would not permit the Committee to keep a copy of the document.

9B_Detainee Interrogations: Survey ofLegal and Policy Considerations at 1-8.
916 Ibid. at 10.

adopted the conclusion that Navy JAG Corps CDR Stephen Gallotta had reached in his January
9, 2003 memo, writing that:
Category III techniques that threaten death to the detainee or his family (#1) or
which create the misapprehension of suffocation (#3) would likely be judged to
constitute torture under the statute and customary international law. They reflect
conduct specifically defmed as torture in [18 U.S.C.] §2340 and recognized as
torture in international law. Category III, technique #4, mild, non-injurious
grabbing and poking, is an assault under the UCMJ. Absent lawful purpose, these
techniques may be per se unlawful.
Category II techniques [] could also, depending in their implementation, i.e.,
frequency of use, degree of pain inflicted, or combinations oftechniques, rise to a
level where they could be determined to be torture. Thus, additional analysis with
specific guidance for implementation is recommended. 917

_The

draft Working Group analysis recommended "[a]dditional factual
information and legal analysis" to "establish both the legality ofthe proposed techniques and any
limits to be applied to their use.,,918 The draft also expressed "significant concerns with some of
the substantive measures in the [October 11, 2002 GTMO] proposal as submitted, particularly in
Category II and almost all of Category 111.,,919 The Working Group's legal analysis was,
however, soon superseded by that ofthe OLe. 920
(U) Within the first two weeks ofthe Working Group's deliberations, the OLe delivered
a draft legal memo to Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker. 921 The OLe's memo, which
would be fmalized on March 14, 2003, was presented to the Working Group as the "controlling
authority for all questions of domestic and internationallaw.,,922 Among the Working Group
members there was a "great deal of disagreement" with the OLC anal~sis and "serious concerns
and objections over some ofthe legal conclusions reached by OLe.,,9 3

917

Ibid. at 20.

918

Ibid.

919

Ibid.

In comments to the Air Force General COWlSel Mary Walker about a March 6,2003 draft of the Working Group
report, the Navy TJAG RADM Michael Lohr encouraged the Working Group to incorporate a reference to the OLC
opinion into its report, noting that the draft report "contain[ed] large segments of DoJ work product, rather than
being 'informed' by DOl" Memo from RADM Michael Lohr to Mary Walker, Comments on the 6 March 2003
Detainee Interrogation Working Group Report (March 13, 2002) at 1.
920

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 16; Hearing on the Nomination of William Haynes IT to be u.s. Circuit Judge
for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (July 11, 2006) at 14.

921

912

Church Report at 124.

923

Ibid.

119

_Nevertheless, at Mr. Haynes's direction, Ms. Walker instructed the Working
Group to consider the "OLC memorandum as authoritative" and directed that it "supplant the
legal analysis being prepared by the Working Group action officers.,,924
(U) CAPT Dalton, the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said
she was ''very angry" when told that the Working Group would be governed by the OLC's legal
analysis. 925 She told the Committee: "There was a point [during the Working Group process]
where we were told that we could not argue against the OLC opinion ... that any other legal
ideas that we had would not be accepted, particularly when we commented on the draft
report.,,926 Likewise, Alberto Mora, the Navy General Counsel and a participant in the Working
Group, said that "[s]oon upon receipt of the OLe memo, the Working Group leadership began to
apply its guidance to shape the content of its report.,,927 Mr. Mora stated that "contributions from
the members ofthe Working Group, including [contributions from his office], began to be
rejected if they did not conform to the OLe guidance.,,928
(U) The final OLe memo, signed by John Yoo on March 14, 2003 (and known
commonly as the "Yoo memo"), adopted many of the same conclusions as those of the First
Bybee memo (dated August 1, 2002), in which the OLC had significantly narrowed the scope of
what constituted torture under federal law. For example, Mr. Yoo's memo repeated OLC's
previous analysis ofthe federal anti-torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340, finding that the statute
prohibited "only extreme acts" and that in order to constitute torture, physical pain would have to
be equivalent in intensity to that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as organ failure,
impairment of bodily functions or even death.,,929
(U) The final March 14,2003 OLC memo, however, added that general criminal statutes,
such as the federal anti-torture statute, were inapplicable to the military during the conduct of a
war. 930 The OLC concluded that the assault, maiming, interstate stalking, and anti-torture
statutes do not apply to the "properly-authorized interrogation of enemy combatants by the
United States Armed Forces during an armed conflict.,,931

924

Church Report at 126 (citing February 2, 2003 Working Group draft)

925

Committee staff interview of Jane Dalton (April 10,2008) at 167.

926

Ibid. at 165.

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 17. Other participants of the Working Group conftrmed that "in drafting the
subject report and recommendations, the legal opinions of the [OLC] were relied on almost exclusively." Memo
from Air Force Deputy JAG Jack Rives to Air Force General Counsel, Final Report and Recommendations ofthe

921

Working Group to Assess the LegaL Policy and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation ofDetainees Held by
the U.S. Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (February 5,2003).
928

Mora, Statement for the Record at 17.

Memorandum from John Yoo to William 1. Haynes II, Re: Military Interrogations ofAlien Unlawful
Combatants Held Outside the United States (March 14, 2003) at 34-47 (hereinafter "Yoo Memo (March 14,2003)").

929

Those canons included "the avoidance of constitutional difficulties, inapplicability of general criminal statutes to
the conduct of the military during war, inapplicability of general statutes to the sovereign, and the speciftc governs
the general." Yoo Memo (March 14, 2003) at 11-19.

930

Yoo Memo (March 14, 2003) at 11-19. Despite concluding that such statutes are inapplicable to the military
during the conduct of a war, the OLC memo nonetheless considered whether use of certain speciftc techniques by an

931

120

(U) The OLC's conclusion was based, in part, on its analysis ofthe President's
Commander in Chief authority. In the First Bybee memo, the OLe had asserted that "any effort
by Congress to regulate the interrogation of battlefield detainees would violate the Constitution's
sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chiefauthority in the President.,,932 In keeping with that
finding, the March 14, 2003 fmal OLC memo held that the power to detain and interrogate
enemy combatants arose out ofthe President's constitutional authority as Commander in
Chief. 933 "In wartime," according to the memo, "it is for the president alone to decide what
methods to use to best prevail against the enemy.,,934
(U) In the March 14, 2003 final opinion, the OLC used its broad reading ofthe
Commander-in-Chiefauthority to conclude that "even if' federal criminal statutes "were
misconstrued to apply" to interrogations, the "Department of Justice could not enforce this law
or any ofthe other [applicable] criminal statutes.,,935 According to the OLC, "[e]ven if an
interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could
not bring alrosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in this
context.,,93
(U) The First Bybee memo and the March 14,2003 final OLe memo were withdrawn in
June 2004 and December 2003, respectively.937 According to Assistant Attorney General for
OLe Jack Goldsmith, the memos were "legally flawed, tendentious in substance and tone, and
,,938
overbroad ...
(U) The Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora called the OLC memo relied on by the
Working Group in 2003 "profoundly in error" and a "travesty ofthe applicable law.,,939
interrogator would constitute an offense under those laws. For example, the OLC memo considered whether
slapping (or attempting to slap) a detainee would constitute assault or run afoul of u.s. constitutional standards. See
Y 00 Memo (March 14, 2(03) at 25, 28, 62, 68.
According to Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith, who withdrew both the
First Bybee memo and the March 14, 2003 fInal OLC memo, "this extreme conclusion has no foundation in prior
OLC opinions, or injudicial decisions, or in any other source of law." Goldsmith continued: "And the conclusion's
signifIcance sweeps far beyond the interrogation opinion or the torture statute. It implies that many other federal
laws that limit interrogation-anti-assault laws, the 1996 War Crimes Act, and the Uniform Code of MilitaJy
Justice-are also unconstitutional, a conclusion that would have surprised the many prior presidents who signed or
ratifIed those laws, or complied with them during wartime." The conclusion was even more "inappropriate,"
according to Goldsmith because "it rested on cursory and one-sided legal arguments that failed to consider
Congress's competing wartime constitutional authorities, or the many Supreme Court decisions potentially in
tension with the conclusion." Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 148-149.

932

933

Y00 Memo (March 14, 2(03) at 2-6.

934

Ibid. at 5.

m Ibid. at 18.
936

Ibid.

Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 159; In December 2003, Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith
advised the Department of Defense General Counsel William 1. Haynes not to rely on the March 14, 2003 fInal OLC
memo. Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February 4,2008).

937

938

Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 151.

939

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 17; SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008).

121

According to Mr. Mora, the "OLC memo proved a vastly more sophisticated version ofthe
Beaver Legal Brief, but it was a much more dangerous document because of the statutory
requirement that OLC opinions are binding provided much more weight to its virtually
equivalent conclusions.,,940 He stated that it became evident to those on the Working Group that
the "report being assembled would contain profound mistakes in its legal analysis, in large
measure because of its reliance on the flawed OLC Memo." 941 CAPT Dalton likewise said that
"to the extent that [the Working Group report] relied on the OLC memo, it did not include what I
considered to be a fair and complete legal analysis ofthe issues involved.,,942 She added that
being told what their le~al opinion had to be "severely constrained [the Working Group's] ability
to do an adequate job." 3 The report, she said, had been "geared toward a ~articular
conclusion[]" and the legal analysis was written to support that conclusion.
C

Working Group Drafts Report Recommending Interrogation Techniques (ll)

(U) When the Secretary of Defense directed the DoD General Counsel to set up the

Working Group, the Secretary instructed him to complete the work within 15 daYS.945 Although
that goal was not met, the Working Group produced several drafts during that time frame and
circulated a draft "Final Report" on February 4, 2003. 946
_
According to VADM Church's report, the General Counsel ofthe Department of
Defense, Jim Haynes, "participated in several meetings" from the "initiation ofthe Working
Group until the report was finalized" at which "the Working Group progress and
recommendations were discussed.,,947
_
Drafts oftheir report from this time period reflect the influence that SERE had on
the Working Group's consideration of interrogation techniques. In a draft ofthe Working Group
report, dated January 27, 2003, the report identified two categories of "interrogation techniques
proven to be effective" - (1) those techniques that were "currently used by trained interrogators
in accordance with u.s. Military Doctrine and policy" and (2) "additional techniques" deemed
"acceptable for use in accordance with ancillary military training processes such as SERE
schools.,,948

!l4O Mora, Statementfor the Record at 17. Legal COWlSel to the Joint Chiefs then-CAPT Jane Dalton also noted that
the March 14, 2003 fInal OLC opinion was "similar to the Beaver analysis" in "approaches and methodology."
Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2(08) at 171.

941

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 17.

942

Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2(08) at 173.

~ Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2(08) at 167.
944

Ibid. at 171.

94~ Memorandum from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to Department of Defense General COWlSel William

J. Haynes IT, Detainee Interrogations (January 15, 2003).
!M6

Church Report at 130.

947

Ibid.

948

DoD Working Group draft report (January 27,2003) at 25-28.

122

_
The first category ofteclmiques, which the January 27, 2003 draft report
identified as those already in use and "proven to be effective," included techniques not listed in
Army Field Manual 34-52, such as isolation, hooding, use of prolonged interrogations, mild
physical contact, removal of clothing, forced grooming. dietary manipulation, use of phobias to
increase levels of stress, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, environmental manipulation,
sleep adjustment, prolonged standing, and deception. 949 In describing one of these techniques deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli - the draft report noted (in an apparent reference to
SERE resistance training) that it was an "effective technique used in military training.,,95o
•
_
The second category oftechniques in the January 27, 2003 draft
Working Group report identified as "proven to be effective" were those in use "with ancillary
military training processes such as SERE schools.,,951 The draft report noted that this second
category ofteclmiques "should only be applied for detainees who are extremely resistant" to the
first category ofteclmiques and "who the interrogators strongly believe have vital
information.,,952 The teclmiques include use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, enforced
physical training. face slap/stomach slap, water immersion, walling, use of wet towel on face or
the "waterboard," use of smoke pipe, and use of drugs. 953 In describing these techniques, the
Working Group draft made repeated reference to use of the techniques at SERE schools - e.g.,
"selected stress positions are used in U.S. Military Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape
(SERE) schools," the "face slap/stomach slap ... is used in SERE training," "water immersion .
. . . is effectively used in SERE courses," ''use of a wet towel on face or the 'waterboard' ... is
the most severe technique used at U.S. Military SERE schools," ''use of smoke pipe ... is also
used at the SERE School.,,954
_
According to JPRA's operating instructions, the purpose of subjecting students
to physical pressures in SERE school is not to obtain information, but ''to project the student's
focus into the resistance scenario and realistically simulate conditions associated with captivity
and resistance efforts.,,955 The JPRA operating instructions state that ''the application of physical
pressure is necessary to produce the correct emotional and physiological projection a student
. fcor stress mocu
.
lanon
' . .. ,,956
reqUITes
_While the draft report described the two lists oftechniques as "proven to be

effectiv~dnot discuss the purpose for which the techniques were proven effective.

_
As Working Group participants made revisions to the draft report, the list of
interrogation techniques in the report remained largely unchanged. A February 2, 2003 draft
949

Ibid. at 26-28.

9'0

Ibid. at 27.

9~1

Ibid. at 28.

9~2

Ibid.

9'3

Ibid.

9'4

Ibid.

JPRA, OL-FA JSSA Instructor Guide, Section 5.1 (September 21, 1994) (emphasis added)

9'6

Ibid.

123

report shows virtually the same list of interrogation techniques as the earlier draft. 957 However,
unlike the earlier draft, the February 2,2003 draft excluded almost all references to "SERE
schools" or to techniques used in "military training." 958 For example, the entire category of
techniques previously identified as techniques in use "with ancillary military training processes
such as SERE schools" were instead described in the February 2,2003 draft as techniques
"considered effective by interrogators and for which USSOUTHCOM and USCENTCOM have
requested approval.,,959
-

By the time the Working Group issued its draft "Final Report" on February 4,
2003, ~ made no reference to SERE schools or techniques used in "military training,,,96o
despite the fact that most ofthe SERE techniques remained in the report. 961
_
The February 4, 2003 draft "Final Report" recommended approval of36
interrogation techniques for use with unlawful combatants outside the United States. 962
(U) The report also listed, but did not recommend approval of, three additional
techniques that the Working Group said it lacked sufficient information to evaluate fully - use of
stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and water immersion/wetting down. 963
Two ofthe three techniques that the Working Group lacked enough information to make a
judgment on, i.e., stress positions and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, were among
those recommended for approval by Mr. Haynes and approved by the Secretary of Defense two
months earlier, on December 2, 2002.

_ O f the 36 recommended interrogation techniques in the February 4,2003 draft, 26
techniques were recommended for general use and 10 techniques were recommended for use
with certain limitations. 964 The 26 techniques recommended in the February 4,2003 report for
general use included 19 techniques from Army Field Manual 34-52 or its predecessor, and seven
techniques that did not comport with the Field Manual, i.e., hooding, mild physical contact,
dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation, sleep adjustment, false flag, and threat of
transfer. 965 The report also recommended approval of 10 additional "exceptional" techniques for
m The one exception was that the "deception" technique in the January 27,2003 draft was replaced with the "false
flag" technique in the February 2,2003 draft. False flag is a type of deception technique used to try and "convince
the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United Sates are interrogating him." DoD Working
Group draft report (February 2, 2003).
9'8

Ibid.

In the February 2, 2003 draft, the technique known as "deprivation of light and auditory stimuli," which was
identified in the earlier draft as an "effective technique used in military training" was moved into this category.
DoD Working Group draft report (January 27, 2003) at 28; DoD Working Group draft report (February 2,2003).

9'9

960

DoD Working Group draft report (February 4,2003) at 60-64.

961

Ibid. at 60-64.

962

Ibid. at 70; Church Report at 130.

963

Church Report at 136.

964

Church Report at 130; Working Group draft report (February 4, 2003).

96~ _According to the Church Report, "The first 19 of the techniques were identical to the 17 specifically
enumerated in FM 34-52, except that the draft added one technique ('Mutt and Jeff,' which the draft described as 'a

124

use with certain limitations. 966 The 10 "exceptional" techniques included isolation, prolonged
interrogations, forced grooming, prolonged standing, sleep deprivation, physical training, face
slap/stomach slap, removal of clothing, increasing anxiety by use of aversions, and the
waterboard. 967
(U) Many ofthe 10 "exceptional" techniques in the report, were similar to techniques
identified in earlier versions ofthe report as either having originated in SERE school or among
those previously approved for use at GTMO and identified by Mr. Becker, the former GTMO
ICE Chief, in his list for the Working Group.
(U) Each ofthe 36 recommended techniques was included in a color-coded matrix or a
"stoplight" chart and designated as either "green," "yellow," or "red" to signify the Working
Group's assessment of legal and policy considerations. 968

~aterboarding was the only technique evaluated as "red" in any area of
consideration in the February 4,2003 report, but the Working Group report continued to
recommend at that time that it be approved for use. 969 That "red" designation meant that the
Working Group determined that there was a major issue in law or policy with respect to
waterboarding "that cannot be eliminated. ,,970 The Working Group rated the waterboard as red
under U.S. domestic law and the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in
the Torture Convention. 971 The Working Group also indicated that the waterboard was not
consistent with historical U.S. forces' interrogation role; prior U.S. public statements; or major
team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator') that was in the 1987 version ofFM 34-52 but was not found in
the [then] current version, and the draft also listed Change of Scenery Up and Change of Scenery Down as separate
techniques, rather than using the more general Change of Scene technique listed in FM 34-52." Church Report at

966"
127.

The report stated that use of techniques listed in the report would be subject to conditions, i.e., "Limited
to specified interrogation centers; There is a good basis to believe that the detainee possesses critical intelligence;
The detainee is medically and operationally evaluated as suitable (considering all techniques in combination);
Interrogators are specifically trained for the technique(s); Subject to a special interrogation plan (including
reasonable safeguards, limits on duration, intervals between applications, tennination criteria and the presence or
availability of qualified medical personnel); Appropriate supervision; and Appropriate specified senior level
approval for use with any specific detainee (after considering the foregoing and receiving legal advice)." Working
Group draft report (February 4, 2003) at 60-64, 70.

Church Report at I3 0 ; . Working Group Report at 60-64, 70 (February 4,2003) "Increasing anxiety by use
of aversions" replaced a technique referred to as "use of phobias to increase levels of stress" in previous versions of
the report. Despite their differing names, the techniques were described similarly and included use of dogs as
examples of the technique.

967

Green indicated "no significant constraint on use raised by the respective" law or policy under consideration,
assuming adequate procedural safeguards; Yellow indicated that the law or policy under consideration did "not
preclude use," but that there were "problematic aspects that cannot be eliminated by procedural safeguards; and
"Red" indicated a "major issue" in the law or policy under consideration "that cannot be eliminated." Working
Group draft report (February 4,2003).
968

969

Ibid.

971"
970

Church Report at 130; Working Group draft report (February 4, 2003).

The Working Group also rated the waterboard as yellow under the prohibition against torture in the
Torture Convention. Working Group draft report (February 4, 2003).

125

partner nation reviews. In addition, the report indicated that the technique could have an effect
on the treatment of captured U.S. forces, could potentially affect detainee prosecutions; was
"inconsistent with modern U.S. military perceptions in decency in dealing with prisoners" and
was "a significant departure from contemporary American military approach to the laws of
war.,,972 The February 4, 2003 Working Group Report gave the waterboard its only overall red
rating and recommended that the approval authority for the technique be "no lower than the
J:'
973
[Secretary ofDelense]."
(U) The Working Group's assessment ofthe techniques on the stoplight chart was
governed by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo. The result, according to then-CAPT
(now RADM) Dalton, was that drafts ofthe stoplight chart were "absolutely wrong legally.,,974
According to RADM Dalton:

[T]here was a column originally . . . in the stoplight chart, that was labeled
"Customary International Law." So one ofthe things we were supposed to assess
was whether or not the techniques were consistent with customary international
law.
The stoplight chart had all 36 techniques green under customary
international law because the OLC opinion and thus the Working Group report
maintained that customary international law did not impose any constraints on the
actions . . . That green column was absolutely wrong legally . . . it was
embarrassing to have it in there, and one of my comments to the report was ...
You need to delete that column entirely because it's embarrassing to have it in
there and it's not reflective ofthe law. 97 S"

(D) In addition to concerns raised by then-CAPT Dalton, almost immediately, the
February 4, 2003 draft final report and its recommended techniques generated objections from
top military lawyers. Within days of receiving the report and continuing over the next month,
the Deputy Judge Advocate General (JAG) ofthe Air Force Jack Rives, the Navy JAG Michael
Lohr, the Army JAG Thomas Romig, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant ofthe
Marine Corps Kevin SandkuWer submitted memoranda expressing serious concerns about the
report and the techniques it recommended.
(U) The senior military lawyers raised the following concerns:
•

(U) The OLC opinion, which was relied on almost exclusively by the Working
Group, was "notably silent" on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the
military justice system applicable to u.s. personnel conducting interrogations. 976

m Working Group draft report (February 4,2003).
97J

Ibid.; Church Report at 130.

974

Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (AprillO, 2008) at 175.

973

Ibid. at 175-176.

976 Memo from Maj Gen Jack Rives to Mary Walker, Final Report and Recommendations ofthe Working Group to
Assess the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation ofDetainees Held by the U.S. Armed
Forces in the War on Terrorism (February 5,2003) (hereinafter "Rives to Walker (February 5,2003)"); Memo from
Brig Gen Kevin Sandkuhler to Mary Walker, Working Group Recommendations on Detainee Interrogations

(February 27,2003) (hereinafter Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27,2(03)"); Memo from U.S. Navy Judge

126

Several ofthe recommended "exceptional" techniques, on their face, amounted to
violations ofthe UCMJ (e.g., assault) and domestic criminal law. 977 As a result,
"applying the more [exceptional] techniques during interrogation of detainees places
the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations
domestically" and could result in criminal prosecution in domestic court. 978
•

(U) U. S. servicemembers may be at risk for criminal prosecution or civil liability in

foreign domestic courts and international fora. 979
•

(U) Employment of exceptional techniques may have a negative effect on the
treatment of U.S. POWs by their captors and raises questions about the ability of the
U. S. to call others to account for mistreatment of U. S. servicemembers. 98o

•

(U) Authorization ofthe exceptional interrogation techniques "may be seen as giving

official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that
U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful" and use ofthe
techniques will adversely impact "pride, discipline, and self-respect within the U. S.
Armed Forces.,,981
•

(U) Authorization ofthe exceptional techniques will negatively impact U.S. and

international public support and respect ofthe U.S. Armed Forces and could have a
negative impact on the public perception ofthe U.S. military.982
•

(U) Authorization ofthe techniques will adversely impact "human intelligence

exploitation and surrender offoreign enemy forces and cooperation and support of
fiiendly nations.,,983

Advocate General RADM Michael Lohr to Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker, Wor/cing Group
Recommendations Relating to Interrogation ofDetainees (February 6,2003) (hereinafter "Lohr to Walker (February
6, 2003)'').
Rives to Walker (February 5,2003); Memo from Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General MG Jack Rives to
Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker, Comments on Draft Reporl and Recommendations ofthe Wor/cing Group
to Assess the Lega~ Policy and Operational Issues Relating to Interrogation ofDetainees Held by the u.s. Armed
Forces in the War on Terrorism (February 6,2003) (hereinafter "Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003)").
9T1

Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27,
2003); Memo from MG Thomas Romig to Mary Walker, Draft Reporl and Recommendations ofthe Wor/cing Group
to Access I sicJ the Lega~ Policy and Operational Issues Related to Interrogation ofDetainees Held by the U.S.
Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (March 3, 2003) (hereinafter "Romig to Walker (March 3, 2003)").
978

m Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (Feb 27, 2003);

Romig to Walker (March 3, 2003).
Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Lohr to Walker (February 6, 2003);
Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27, 2003).

980

981

Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27, 2003).

Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003)~ Rives to Walker (February 6,2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27,
2003).

982

98J

Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27,2003).

127

(U) According to DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, the Secretary of Defense met with
participants of the Working Group and was aware of concerns reflected in the comments made
by the senior military lawyers. 984
(U) On March 6, 2003, the Working Group circulated another version of its report
entitled "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism:
Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations."
_
According to the Church Report, when circulated, the March 6, 2003 version was
considered final, but at some point, it was later re-characterized as a draft. 985 Over the objections
ofthe military lawyers, all 36 techniques from the February 4,2003 draft report remained a part
ofthe Working Group's recommendations and were included in the March 6, 2003 report. 986
The three techniques that the Working Group could not evaluate fully also remained in the
March 6, 2003 report, but were not recommended for approval. 987 By March 6, 2003, the
Working Group still "had not received adequate information" regarding these three techniques,
including two that had been approved by the Secretary in December 2002, to conduct a "legal or
policyanalysis.,,988
(U) Upon receiving the March 6, 2003 version, senior military lawyers continued to raise
concerns that the recommendations were based on a flawed OLC legal analysis. One JAG noted
that the draft report's introduction, which said it was '''informed' by [the] OLC opinion ...
create[d] an incorrect impression" since "[m]ost (if not all) working group members and TJAGs
disagree[d] with significant portions of [the] OLe opinion, but were forced to accept it.,,989 The
military lawyers also continued to express the view that the recommended techniques would
expose American soldiers to potential prosecution; would invite reciprocal treatment of captured
U.S. personnel; could affect the admissibility of detainee statements in criminal prosecutions,
including military commissions; and were not proven to result in obtaining reliable information
from those being interrogated. 990

SOUTHCOM Presses fOT Additional Techniques (U)

_
As the various Working Group drafts were being discussed, JTF-GTMO and
SOUTHCOM pressed for authority to use additional interrogation techniques at GTMO. On
February 12,2003, in advance ofa planned briefing by MG Miller to Deputy Secretary of
Defense Wolfowitz, LTC Beaver sent an email to the Department of Defense's Associate Deputy
984

Committee staff interview of William J. Haynes IT (April 25, 2008) at 263.

986_

985

Church Report at 5.

"An additional caution was incorporated into the March 6, 2003 recommendations regarding technique
36~terboard: 'As a matter of policy, technique 36 should be used only in instances of extreme necessity.
Some members of the working group believed that it should not be used by U. S. Armed Forces personnel. ,,, Church
Report at 34; Working Group draft report (March 6, 2003) at 68-69.
987 Working

Group draft report (March 6, 2003) at 68-69.

988

Ibid.

989

Email from Col James Walker to Daniel Ramos (March 10,2003).

990

Church Report at 134-135.

128

General Counsel for International Affairs Eliana Davidson stating that "we must have
interrogation technique approval immediately and will speak to Mr. Wolfowitz about this. The
hallmark is isolation and up to 20 hour interrogation. Without that we can't be successful in the
community environment. We need commitment from the senior leadership to let us do this
mission. ,,991
_
Three days later, LTC Beaver followed up with the General Counsel's office,
stating that MG Miller "was informed by DEPSECDEF that we would have interrogation
techniques (isolation and up to 20 hours) approved by Wednesday [February 19,2003]. We
hope this happens.,,992

IIA

month later, on March 12,2003, a Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at SOUTHCOM
sent LTC Beaver an email informing her about a March 11, 2003 meeting that was attended by
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, SOUTHCOM Commander GEN James Hill, and
Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Gen Richard Myers, where interrogation
techniques were discussed. 993 According to the Deputy SJA at SOUTHCOM, during the
meeting, Gen Myers, raised a concern that some ofthe techniques discussed for GTMO "could
be illegal depending on how far they were used.,,994 The Deputy SJA informed LTC Beaver that
GEN Hill "promised the Chairman a paper discussing the techniques we want" and that
SOUTHCOM wanted to get a draft memo to GEN Hill by close of business March 20,2003. 995
LTC Beaver forwarded the email to DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel Eliana Davidson
and told her "This email is not good news. It appears something went wrong.,,996 Ms. Davidson
replied that Mr. Haynes had been at the meeting where interrogation techniques were discussed
and that she was trying to get some clarification on the meeting. 997

_
On March 21, 2003, GEN Hill sent a memorandum to Gen Myers regarding the
interrogation techniques that had been rescinded in January. While MG Miller's January 21,
2003 letter to General Hill had listed only nine Category II techniques as "essential," General
Hill's March 21, 2003 memo stated that both he and MG Miller felt that approval of all ofthe
previously authorized techniques (in Categories I, II and III) was "essential.,,998 General Hill
stated that"both Geoff Miller and I believe that we need as many appropriate tools as possible"
and called Category II and the one previously authorized Category III technique "critical to
maximizing our ability to accomplish the mission, now and in the future.,,999 The "critical"
techniques referred to by General Hill included stress positions, deprivation oflight and auditory
991

Email from LTC Diane Beaver to Eliana Davidson (February 12, 2003).

m Ibid.
993

Email from COL Terrence Farrell to LTC Diane Beaver (March 12, 2003).

994

Ibid.

99'

Ibid.

996

Email from LTC Diane Beaver to Eliana Davidson (March 13,2003).

997

Email from Eliana Davidson to LTC Diane Beaver (March 13, 2003).

Memo from GEN Hill to Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Information on Interrogation Techniques (March
21,2003).

998

999

Ibid.

129

stimuli, removal of clothing, use of detainee phobias such as dogs, and the one Category III
technique the Secretary had authorized, which included grabbing, poking, and light pushing.

JPRA Briefs Members ofthe Working Group on SERE Techniques (U)

_
Prior to issuing a final report on April 4, 2003, members ofthe Working Group
again sought infonnation from JPRA on SERE techniques. The JAG of the Air Force, Maj Gen
Thomas Fiscus, and two other military officers, visited JPRA and were briefed on SERE physical
pressures. IOOO At the briefing, JPRA described its previous support to "high value target"
interrogations, discussed the processes and procedures used in SERE training, and reviewed the
"application of physical pressures in an operational environment. ,,1001 JPRA Chief of Staff
Daniel Baumgartner told Maj Goo Fiscus that JPRA had previously provided information on
techniques used in SERE schools to DoD Deputy General Counsel Richard Shiffrin. 1oo2

The Working Group Finalizes Its Report and the Secretary ofDefense Issues a
New Interrogation Policy For GTMO (U)

II On March 28, 2003, the Secretary of Defense met with a number of senior advisors
including Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, and Chairman
ofthe Joint Chiefs ofStaffGen Richard Myers, to discuss the interrogation techniques being
considered by the Working Group. 1003 After that meeting, the Secretary decided to expressly
authorize 24 interrogation techniques, including five that were not listed in the Army Field
Manual (one ofthese five was classified as an "exceptional" technique). 1004
• The Joint Chiefs of Staff met on March 31,2003, and were briefed about Secretary
Rumsfeld's decision. According to CAPT Dalton, the Legal Counsel to the Chairman ofthe
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the "Chiefs recognized that the approved strategies would not hamper the
combatant commander in the accomplishment of his mission, because the door was o~en to
request additional strategies on a case-by-case basis if needed in compelling cases.,,10 S
_
The last and final version ofthe Working Group report was issued on April 4,
2003. The report was similar to the March 6, 2003 version, except that it did not recommend
waterboarding or list the three other exceptional techniques that the Working Group could not
evaluate fully - stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and water

1000

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007).

1001

JPRA Power Point presentation, Project 22B (June 2003).

1002

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007).

1003.

"According to the Secretary's daily schedule, the advisors at the meeting included Mr. Haynes, Gen Myers,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen
Cambone, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Marshall Billingslea, and CAPT Dalton." Church
Report at 136. By the time the Secretary met with his advisors, the Working Group had removed waterboarding
from consideration. Ibid. at 135-6.
1004

Ibid. at 136.

lOO~ Memo from RADM Jane Dalton to VADM Church, Requestfor Information (August 10,2004) at 5.

130

immersion/wetting down. 1006 At the direction ofthe DoD Principal Deputy General Counsel
Daniel Dell'Orto, the April 4, 2003 report was not circulated to the participants of the Working
Group. 1007
(U) In fact, when it came to finalizing the report, some participants of the Working Group
who had raised objections to the report were excluded from the process and did not even know
that the report had been completed. 1008 According to Alberto Mora, the Navy General Counsel,
"Neither I, [the Navy Office ofthe General Counsel], nor - to my knowledge - anyone else in
the [Department of Navy] ever received a completed version ofthe Working Group report. It
was never circulated for clearance. Over time, I would come to assume that the report had never
been fmalized.,,1009 Mr. Mora said that he only learned ofthe final report nearly a year later
while watching a "televised congressional hearing on the Abu Ghraib scandal."lOlO

On April 5, 2003, Gen Myers forwarded a memo proposing that the Secretary of

Defens~ze24 ofthe interrogation techniques reviewed during the Working Group

process. 1011 In response, Marshall Billingslea, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/ Low-Intensity Conflict sent a memo to the Secretary of Defense
raising concerns about the omission of certain techniques and recommending that the Secretary
approve all 35 techniques "endorsed by the Working GrOUp.,,1012 Mr. Billingslea's memo stated:
The current memo omits some interrogation techniques that are not controversial
from either a legal, or policy standpoint. For instance, blindfolding ('hooding'),
lightly touching a detainee, and threatening transfer to a 3rd country all seem
reasonable techniques to approve.
The draft memo also omits some techniques which the Working Group found to
be legally-permissible, but which should 'be done only with appropriate oversight.
While the Working Group felt that the Combatant Commander could approve
these measures, we recommend requiring that you be notified prior to their use.
The measures in question include using prolonged interrogations, prolonged
standing in non-stress positions, forced grooming, requiring physical exercise,
face/stomach slaps to cause surprise but not pain or injury, etc.

1006 Department of Defense, Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism:
Assessment ofLega~ Historica~ Policy, and Operational Considerations (April 4, 2003).
1007

Church Report at 136.

SASC Hearing (June 17,2008) (Testimony of Alberto Mora); Military Justice and Detention Policy in the
Global War on Terrorism, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel, 109lh Congo (July 14,
2005) (Testimony ofMG Thomas Romig).

1008

1009

Mora, Statementfor the Record at 20.

1010 Ibid

1011

Church Report at 137.

1012

Memo from Marshall Billingslea to Secretary Rumsfeld, Interrogation Methodsfor GTMO (April 10, 2003).

131

Finally, we recommend delegating certain techniques to General Miller at
GTMO. 1013
(U) On April 16, 2003, the Secretary of Defense authorized the Commander of
SOUTHCOM to use 24 interrogation techniques. 1014 Of the 24 techniques, four - Mutt and Jeff,
incentive/removal of incentive, pride and ego down, and isolation - required that the
SOUTHCOM Commander make a determination of "military necessity" and notify the Secretary
in advance of using them. lOIS The Secretary authorized the use ofthe other 20 techniques with
all detainees at GTMO so long as GTMO personnel adhered to certain safeguards. Those
authorized techniques included dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation, sleep
adjustment, and false flag, none of which were listed in the Army Field Manual.
(U) In addition to expressly authorizing the 24 techniques listed in his April 16, 2003
memorandum, Secretary Rumsfeld wrote in his memo: "If, in your view, you require additional
interrogation techniques for a particular detainee, you should provide me, via the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a written request describing the proposed techni~ue, recommended
safeguards, and the rationale for applying it with an identified detainee."l 16
(U) CAPT Dalton told the Committee that all ofthe techniques recommended by the
Working Group were available for request. 1017 That understanding was shared by the Joint
Chiefs, who she said believed that the door was open to request additional strategies on a caseby-case basis ifneeded in compelling cases. ,,1018 The GTMO Commander would soon seek and
receive authority to use additional techniques that went beyond the 24 expressly approved in the
Secretary's April 16, 2003 memo.

IX.

Aggressive Interrogations at GTMO (U)

AUegations ofDetainee Mistreatment (U)

liAs the final Working Group report was being generated, and on the heels of
SOUTHCOM and GTMO's press for additional interrogation authorities, a Commander's
inquiry was initiated at GTMO following allegations that, between March and April 2003,
interrogation personnel and military police had forced detainees to engage in physical
training. 1019

1013

Ibid.

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to GEN James T. Hill, Counter-Resistance
Techniques in the War on Terrorism (April 16, 2003) (hereinafter "Secretary Rumsfeld to GEN Hill (April 16,

1014

2003)").
101'

Secretary Rumsfeld to GEN Hill (April 16,2003).

1016

Ibid

1017

Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10,2008) at 225.

1018

Memo from RADM Jane Dalton to VADM Church, Requestfor Information (August 10, 2004) at 5.

1019

Memo for Record from ACS Contractor, Possible Inappropriate Activities (undated).

132

looked into onl one ofthe aile ed incidents of mistreatment -

An interrogator, two analysts, and a member ofthe GTMO Behavioral Science
Consultation Team (BSCT) who were interviewed for the inquiry "believed that the technique
was appropriate, approved, applied properly, and was common practice ...,,1023
Notwithstanding the statement that the technique was "common practice," the GTMO
Interrogation Control Element (lCE) ChiefU Col Ted Moss, his depu~, and the ICE operations
officer said they were not aware compulsive exercise was being used. 1 24

On May 2, 2003, MG Miller directed the Director ofthe Joint Intelligence Group
(JIG), John Antonitis, to "cease ofthe use of the 'Fear-Up Harsh' interrogation technique," and
said the inquiry had identified a need for re-training and corrective action to "ensure
[interrogators1 understand the approved interrogation techniques and practices and their
" 1d2S
'
· ·+~·t·
Itmll410ns.
(U) A subsequent memorandum called "Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation
Techniques Used at GTMO" criticized the Commander's inquiry. 1026

The memo said the inquiry was too limited and found that the disciplinary action "did
not address the command failures that allowed such activity to take place, despite apparent
command sanctionin ofthe incidents.,,1027 In fa the Commander's in ui failed to
Nor did the inquiry
review an allegation that, on April 17, 2003, a female GTMO interrogator sat on a detainee's lap

lOll

Ibid

1023

Ibid

1024

Ibid at 2.

ll)z~ Memo from MG Geoffre Miller for Commander USSOUTHCOM, Commander's Inquiry, Allegation of
Inhumane Treatment 0
(May 3, 2(03).
1026 Memo, Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation Techniques Used at GTMO (undated) (hereinafter
"Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation Techniques ").
1027

Ibid.

An April 2003 Memorandum for Record drafted by a contractor at GTMO alleged the technique was used on
several occasions, including in late March 2003 as well as on April 7, 2003, and April 17, 2003. Memo for Record
from ACS Contractor, Possible Inappropriate Activities (undated).

1028

133

"making sexual affiliated movements with her chest and pelvis while again speaking sexually
oriented sentences.,,1029

(U) The second incident involved a female military interrogator who wiped what she told
the detainee was menstrual blood on a detainee's face and forehead. 1033
_ The "Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation Techniques Used at GTMO" memo
found that there was "no clear information indicating disciplinary action for the 'lap dance' and
.
simulated blood incidents.,,1034

The same memo concluded that ''the incidents occurring during the Spring of 2003
signiflied] a consistent problem at GTMO. ,,1035 It stated that it was "clear" that interrogators
"may use several ifnot all of the techniques that require SECDEF notification."I036 The memo
also concluded that "interpretation ofthe SECDEF approved techniques has resulted in
variations on how techniques are applied (i.e., is yelling, loud music and strobe lights
environmental manipulation?)" and "[d]espite these revelations by interrogators, the supervisory
chain of command reports that these techniques are not used.,,1037 An FBI Special Agent serving
at GTMO stated that ''there was a time period where the interrogations were obtrusive enough
that the interview rooms for an entire trailer were not available if one ofthese techniques were
·
t'l'
liZ ed . ,,1038
b emgu
•
Other contemporaneous documents indicate that in addition to the use of strobe lights
and loud music, techniques such as forced shaving, sensory deprivation and even implied threats
1029

Ibid

1030

Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation Techniques at 2.

1031

Ibid

1032

Ibid.

1033

Ibid

1034

Ibid.

103~

Ibid

1036

Ibid

1037

Ibid. at 3.

1038

Email from FBI Special Agent (July 14, 2004).

134

of death were either used or planned for use in specific ITF-GTMO interrogations even after MG

Special Interrogation Plans Modeled on Khatani Interrogation (U)

(U) Despite their repeated objections, law enforcement had been unable to stop ITFGTMO from proceeding with its aggressive interrogation of Mohammed al Khatani in November
2002. An FBI Special Agent told the Committee that law enforcement believed at the time that
the Khatani interrogation would defme the conduct of future interrogations at GTMO. 1039
Documents relating to ITF-GTMO's plans for interrogating other high value GTMO detainees
substantiated the belief of the FBI Special Agent
1.

JTF-GTMO Plansfor Interrogation ofSlahi (U)

_
A memo dated on January 16, 2003 - the day after the Secretary of Defense
rescinded interrogation techniques he had previously authorized for GTMO - described a plan
for the interrogation ofMohamadou Walid Slahi. While Slahi's interrogation does not appear to
have begun until July 2003, the January 16,2003 memo described specific techniques ITFGTMO intended to use in his interrogation, many of which mirrored those used in the Khatani
interrogation. For example, the memo stated that interrogations would be conducted for up to 20
hours per day on Slahi, just as they had been for Khatani. 1040 The memo said that interrogators
could pour water on Slahi's head to "enforce control" and "keep [him] awake.,,1041 Interrogators
had also poured water over Khatani's head as a "method of asserting control.,,1042
The January 16,2003 memo stated that "K-9 dogs can be present and made
to bark to agitate [Slahi].,,1043 Similarly, military workingdogs had been used in Khatani's
interrogation ''to agitate the detainee and provide shock value."1044 The presence of dogs in the
Slahi memo is notable as MG Miller said that, months earlier, he had "rejected [using dogs in
interrogations] as an acceptable technique" and that dogs "were not to be used during active
interrogation"I04S
The January 16, 2003 memo also described techniques directed at breaking
down Slahi's ego, including ridiculing him, making him wear a mask and signs labeling him a
"liar," a "coward," or a "dog."1046 The memo stated that interrogators would also instruct Slahi
1039

Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8,2007).

1040 Memo, Methods and Approaches to Employ (U): Special Interrogation Operation ofISN 7 6 0 _
(January 16, 2003) (hereinafter "Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03)'').

1041

InterrogationofISN 760 (January 16,2(03).

1041

Memo, Methods Employed X-Ray Interrogation ISN 6311(January 17, 2003).

1043

Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

1044

Ibid.

104~ Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (May 2, 2006).
1046

Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

135

to bark and perfoim dog tricks "to reduce the detainee's ego and establish control." 1047 Khatani
had also been forced to wear a dog collar and perform dog tricks, and interrogators had placed
signs on him such as "liar," "coward," and "dog.,,1048
The January 16,2003 memo described shaving Slahi's head and beard,
making him wear a burka, and subjecting him to strip search ''to reduce [his] ego by assaulting
his modesty.,,1049 Likewise, ITF-GTMO interrogators had shaved Khatani's head and beard and
he had also been strip searched. 1050
The memo stated that Slahi would be denied the opportunity to pray and
described techniques to exploit "religious taboos," such as using a female interrogator in "close
physical contact."IOSl The memo also stated that interrogators would play music to "stress
[Slahi] because he believes music is forbidden" and that light in Slahi's interrogation booth
would be filtered "with red plastic to produce a stressful environment.,,10S2 Khatani had also
been denied ~rayer and a female interrogator touched him during his interrogation to increase his
stress level." 053 Khatani too had been isolated, a red filter was placed over the light in his
interrogation booth, and music was used in his interrogation to create stress. 1054
_
The January 16, 2003 memo indicated that ITF-GTMO interrogators planned
to make use ofa completely white room during Slahi's interrogation "to reduce outside stimuli
and present an austere environment," that interrogators would use a strobe light in his
interrogation booth to "disorient [Slahi] and add to [his] stress level," and that a hood would be
placed on Slahi in the booth" ''to isolate him and increase feelings offutility."loss

JTF-GTMO FormaUy Submits Special Interrogation Plan/or Slahi
(ISN 760) (U)

In July 2003, six months after the above-described memo was produced and

three months after the Secretary'issued new interrogation authorities for GTMO, MG Miller
submitted to SOUTHCOM a formal request for approval ofa special interrogation plan for
Slahi. 10s6 In seeming contradiction to his May 2, 2003 order that the fear up harsh approach not
be used in interrogations, the plan included many of the techniques described in the January 16,
1047 Interrogation
1048 Methods

ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 63. (January 17, 2003); Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16,

2003).
1049

Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

10'0 Methods EmployedX-Ray

Interrogation ISN 6311(January 17,2003)

1051

Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03),

10'2

InterrogationofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

10'3 Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN
10'4

631 (January 17, 2003).

Ibid

10" Interrogation

ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03).

Joint Task Force Guantanarno Bay, Joint Interrogation Group, ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July 1, 2003)
(hereinafter "ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July 1, 2(03)").

10'6

136

2003 memo and stated that ''the single most important aspect ofthese techniques is the initial
shock ofthe treatment... [the] detainee will have the perception that his situation has changed
drastically and that life can still become worse than what he is experiencing. ,,1057
_
The first three to five days of interrogation were planned for Camp Delta. 1058 If
Slahi was not cooperative, the plan proposed that military police in full riot gear take him from
his cell, place him on a watercraft, and drive him around to make him think he had been taken
off ofthe island. In reality, Slahi would be taken to Camp Echo where the interrogation was to
continue. A memo describing that part of the plan said that military police working dogs would
be used during his movement to "assist developing the atmosphere that something major is
happening and add to the tension level ofthe detainee.,,1059
_
Interrogating Slahi at Camp Echo was intended to emotionall~and
psychologically weaken him through "drastic changes in his environment.,,1
Mirroring the
Khatani interrogation plan, the Slahi plan included efforts to "re~licate and exploit the
'Stockholm Syndrome' between detainee and his interrogators." 061 In his evaluation of the
Khatani plan more than seven months earlier, the NCIS psychologist assigned to the CITF, Dr.
Michael Gelles, had said that the idea of inducing the Stockholm syndrome implied that "the
subject feels that he is to be killed and the information provided may in fact be distorted. ,,1062

_The

GTMO plan stated that, while in the interrogation room at Camp Echo,
Slahi would sit in a basic chair and "be shackled to the floor and left in the room for up to four
hours while sound is playing continually.,,1063 His time in the room was intended to "disorient
him and establish fear ofthe unknown" and emphasize to Slahi that '''the rules have changed'
and nobody knows he is there.,,1064 The practice of shackling him to the floor and subjecting
him to loud music was to be repeated over several days, interrupted by actual interrogations.
Slahi was to be permitted four hours of sleep every sixteen hours. 1065
_
The plan stated that an interrogation room would be "modified in such a way
as to reduce as much outside stimuli as possible. The doors will be sealed to a point that allows
no light to enter the room. The walls may be covered with white paint or paper to further
1m ISN 760 Inte"ogation Plan (July 1, 2003).
10'8

Ibid

10'9

Memo from LT Richard Zuley, Objective: Transport ISN 760from Camp Delta to Camp Echo (tmdated).

1060

ISN 760 Inte"ogation Plan (July 1, 2003).

1061

Ibid

1062

Memo from Michael Gelles, PsyD., Review ofJI'F-GTMO Inte"ogation Plan Detainee 063 dtd November 21,

2002 (November 22, 2002).
1063

ISN 760 Inte"ogation Plan (July 1, 2003) at 7.

1064

Ibid

106' On April 12, 2003 MG Miller sent GEN Hill an email requesting that SOUTHCOM provide a defInition of sleep
deprivation. On June 2, 2003, GEN Hill sent MG Miller a letter defIning sleep deprivation as "keeping a detainee
awake for more than 16 hours or allowing a detainee to rest briefly and then repeatedly awakening him, not to
exceed four days in succession" MG Geoffrey Miller email to GEN James Hill (April 12, 2003).

137

eliminate objects the detainee may concentrate on. The room will contain an eyebolt in the floor
and speakers for sound.,,1066 The plan said that the "interrogation team will make detainee feel
psychologically uncomfortable, emotionally uncomfortable, assert superiority over detainee,
escalate stress, play loud music, and continue to condition detainee to menial tasks.,,1067

_On

July 18,2003, SOUTHCOM Commander GEN James Hill forwarded a
copy ofGTMO's interrogation plan for Slahi to the Secretary of Defense. GEN Hill's cover
memorandum stated that the interrogation plan "employs techniques not previously approved in
your [April 16, 2003] memorandum" and requested the Secretary's approval "to use sound
modulation (at decibel levels not harmful to hearing) and sleep deprivation.,,1068 The
memorandum also notified the Secretary that GTMO intended to isolate Slahi and use "pride and
ego down" with him. 1069

II On July 24, 2003, Marshall Billingslea, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations / Low-Intensity Conflict (SOLIC), forwarded a memo notifYing
the Secretary of Defense that JTF-GTMO intended to isolate Slahi and recommending that he
approve the use of "sleep deprivation" and "sound modulation at decibel levels not harmful to
hearing.,,1070 A handwritten note on the memo stated that "OGC concurs that this is legal. We
don't see any policy issues with these interrogation techniques. Recommend you authorize.,,1071
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz approved the memo on July 28,2003 and
forwarded it to Secretary Rumsfeld, who added his approval on August 13, 2003. 1072

~ The Slahi plan stated that it would "not be implemented until approved by
higher authority." 073 Despite that statement, memoranda for the record suggest techniques for
which JTF-GTMO sought authority were used at least a month before the Secretary's written
approva1.

Interrogation Begins Before Special Interrogation Plan Is Approved (U)

IISeveral memoranda for the record documenting Slahi's interrogation were written by
ITF-GTMO personnel in July and August 2003. These memoranda indicate that at least one
technique for which JTF-GTMO sought authority to use with Slahi, i.e., sound modulation, was
used before written authority was actually granted by the Secretary of Defense. 1074 The
1066 ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July I, 2003) at 8.
1067ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July 1,2003).
1068. Memo from GEN James Hi~efense Donald Rumsfeld, Interrogation Plan (IP) for Detainee
Mohamadou Walid Slahi, ISN~ (July 18,2003).
1069 Ibid

Memo from Marshall Billingslea to Secretary of Defense, Mohamadou Walid Slahi.
24,2003).

1070

1071

Ibid

1072

Ibid

1073

ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July I, 2003) at 3.

1074

Memo for Record,

(July

OUHAMADOO OULD SLAHI// (July 17, 2003).

138

memoranda also suggest the use of some techniques, such as forcing Slahi to stand for prolonged
periods, for which no re~uest for authority from SOUTHCOM or OSD appears to have been
made by ITF_GTMO. 107 In addition, while MG Miller had, more than two months earlier, said
that interrogators were not to use the fear up harsh approach, the memoranda indicate that
increasing Slahi's level offear was an integral part of his interrogation and that one interrogator
even implied to Slahi that he could be tortured or killed.

III The memoranda indicate that, on several occasions from July 8 through July 17, Slahi

was interrogated by a masked interrogator called "Mr. x." On July 8, 2003 Slahi was
interrogated by Mr. X and was "exposed to variable lighting patterns and rock music, to the tune
of Drowning Pool's 'Let the Bodies Hit [the] Floor'.,,1076 On July 10, 2003 Slahi was placed in
an interrogation room handcuffed and standing while the air conditioning was turned off until the
room became "quite wann.,,1077 The next day, Slahi was brought into the interrogation booth
and again remained standing and handcuffed while the air conditioning was again turned off. 1078
After allowing Slahi to sit, the interrogator later ''took [Slahi's] chair and left him standing for
several hours." 1079 According to the memo, Slahi was ''visibly uncomfortable and showed signs
of fatigue. lbis was 401 day oflong duration interrogations.,,1080
(U) On July 17, 2003, the masked interrogator told Slahi about a dream he had had where
he saw "four detainees that were chained together at the feet. They dug a hole that was six feet
long, six feet deep, and four feet wide. Then he observed the detainees throw a plain, unpainted,
pine casket with the number 760 [Slahi's internment serial number (lSN)] painted on it in orange
on the ground.,,1081

_
On August 2, 2003 an interrogator told Slahi ''to use his imagination and think up
the worst possible thing that could happen to him" and asked him "what scares him more than
anything else.,,1082
(U) That same day, the interrogator told Slahi that to ''use his imagination to think up the
worst possible scenario he could end up in.,,1083 The interrogator told Slahi that "beatings and
physical pain are not the worst thing in the world. After all being beaten for a while, humans
tend to disconnect the mind from the body and make it through. However, there are worse things
-than physical pain.,,1084 The interrogator told Slahi that he would ''very soon disappear down a

G1MO-0598~OUH.AU4DOOOULD SLAB!// (July 10, 2003).

107'

Memo for Record,

1076

Memo for Record, G1MO-0598~OUHAMADOOOULD SLAB!// (July 17, 2003).

1077

Memo for Record, G1MO-0598_0UHAMADOO OULD SLAB!// (July 10, 2(03).

1078

Memo for Record, G1MO-0598~OUIi4MADOOOULD SLAB!// (July 11, 2(03).

111'79

Memo for Record, G1MO-0598.-..uOUH.AU4DOO OULD SLAB!// (July 11, 2003).

1080

Ibid.

1081

Schmidt-Furlow Report at 24.

1082

Memo for Record,

1083

DoJIG report at 123

1084

Schmidt-Furlow Report at 25.

G1MO-0598~OUH.AU4DOOOULD SLAB!// (August 2, 2003).

139

very dark hole. His very existence will become erased ... no one will know what happened to
him and, eventually, no one will care.,,1085
(U) At one point in his interrogation, Slahi was also shown a fictitious letter that had been
drafted by the Interrogation Team Chief stating that his mother had been detained, would be
interrogated, and if she were uncooperative she might be transferred to GTMO. 1086 The letter
pointed out that she would be the only female detained at "this previously all-male prison
environment."1087

~on August 7, 2003, Slahi informed an interrogator that he had made a decision to
cooperate. 088 After questioning Slahi, his interrogator "congratulated [him] on his decision to
tell the whole truth.,,1089
4.

Special Interrogation Plan Approved and Implemented Despite
Apparent Cooperation (U)

II Five days after interrogators congratulated Slahi for his decision to "tell the whole
truth," the Secretary of Defense approved ITF-GTMO's Special Interrogation Plan.
Notwithstanding Slahi's apparent decision on August 7, 2003 to cooperate with interrogators, an
August 21, 2003 email described preparations made to implement the Special Interrogation
Plan. 1090 The email described sealing Slahi' s cell at Camp Echo to "prevent light from shining"
in and covering the entire exterior of his cell with tarp to "prevent him from making visual
contact with guards.,,1091
_
Weeldy Reports from the ITF-GTMO Commander in September and October
2003 indicated that Slahi "continue[d] to be cooperative.,,1092 Despite that apparent cooperation,
those same weekly reports stated that that the interrogations were continuing in accordance with
the approved interrogation plan. A contemporaneous document suggested that the interrogation
may have begun affecting Slahi's mental state. 1093

_An

October 17,2003 email from a JTF-GTMO interrogator to LTC Diane Zierhoffer,
a ITF-GTMO Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) Psychologist, stated that "Slahi
told me he is "hearing voices' now... He is worried as he knows this is not normal .... By the way
... is this something that happens to people who have little external stimulus such as daylight,

lOS'

Ibid

1086

DoJ IG report.

1087

Ibid

1088

Memo for Record, G1MO-059_0UHAM4.DOO OULD SLAB/II (September 8, 2003).

1089

Ibid.

1090

Email from JTF-GTMO IS2 to LT Richard Zuley and Capt Sean Wilson (August 21,2003).

1091

Ibid

11m JI'F-G1MO

Weekly Thematic Focus: September 29-0ctober 5,2003 and October 6-12 2003.

1093 JI'F-G1MO Weekly Thematic Focus: September 29-0ctober 5, 2003; October 6-122003; October 20-26, 2003;
and November 3-9, 2003.

140

human interaction etc???? Seems a little creepy."I094 LTC Zierhoffer responded "sensory
deprivation can cause hallucinations, usually visual rather than auditory, but you never know ...
In the dark you create things out of what little you have ...,,1095
.

FBI Concerns with Special Interrogation (U)

liThe view that the use ofthe aggressive techniques could affect Slahi's potential
prosecution turned out to be accurate. LtCol Stuart Couch, a military prosecutor assigned to the
Slahi case wrote in March 2004 that "prosecutors in our office are very concerned about the
allegations of detainee abuse at GTMO and Mghanistan, and we have individually taken steps to
address this issue. The techniques employed by the intelligence community in obtaining
information is a policy decision that obviously affects our prosecution efforts, yet we are
powerless to influence such activities."lloo After becoming aware ofinterrogations techniques to
which Slahi had been subject, LtCol Couch refused to participate in the prosecution. HOI

Special Project at GTMO Uses Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U)

(U) JTF-GTMO produced written weekly updates on significant activities including
certain detainee interrogations. The updates were sent to the SOUfHCOM Commander and,
according to MG Miller, were forwarded to the Joint Staffand Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul

1094

Email from JTF-GTMO Interrogator to LTC Diane Zierhoffer (October 17, 2003).

109'

Ibid

1096

Email from FBI Special Agent (December 5, 2003).

1097 Ibid
1098 Ibid
1099

FBI Electronic Communication from Counterterrorism MLDU to Counterterrorism (May 18, 2004).

Memo from LtCol Stuart Couch to Brigadier General Scott Black, Office o/Military Commissions Prosecution
Operational Assessment (March 18, 2004).

1100

1101

Committee staff interview of LtCol Stuart Couch (June 21, 2007).

141

Wolfowitz. 1102 MG Miller said that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was interested in the reports
and his office would occasionally call GTMO to inquire about particular detainees.
_
On July 13,2003, the GTMO Conunander sent an email, accompanied by his
Weekly Update repo~t GTMO had "finalized_ plans.,,1103 According to the
email, the objective"-was to "fracture_detainee resistance to cooperation and to
induce detainees to be forthcoming during interrogations."11 04 The email stated that the U.S.
Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) Psychological Applications Directorate Chief
LTC Morgan Banks, who had hosted the JPR~ for GTMO interrogation personnel at
Fort Bragg in September 2002, "conducted a _ _ assessment visit" and had provided
"very valuable insightS."llOS The email stated that LTC Banks planned to return for a "follow. . m
. 60 days. ,,1106
up VISit

_ _ In November 2003, several months after
Miller submitted two requests for authority to use sound modulation in interrogations
suggesting that MG Miller felt he needed authorization to use that
technique in interrogations. 1I08 The Committee is not aware, however, of a similar request for
authority to use strobe lights, loud music, and 15 hour interrogations in connection with_
•
According to the Church report, some interrogators considered strobe lights and loud music
a form of environmental manipulation which had been authorized by the Secretary of Defense in
~G Miller's written requests for authority to use sound modulation in the
_
interrogations are at odds with that understanding.

1102

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 5, 2007).

1100

Email from MG Geoffrey Miller to GEN James Hill (July 13, 2003).

1104

Ibid

1105

Ibid

1106

Ibid

Miller to Commander U.S. Southern Cornman Re uest or Approval of
(November 13, 2003) at 2~; Memo from M~ Miller
terrogation Plan (IP) for I S ~
(November 13, 2003) at 2-3 (hereinafter "MG
Miller, Requestfor Approval ofIPfor
1109

Church Report at 172.

142

CITF Reissues Order for Agents to "Stand Clear" ofAggressive
Interrogations (U)

(U) In October 2003, with the Slahi Special Interrogation Plan underway, the Criminal
Investigative Task Force again issued guidance to its agents to stand clear of interrogations using
aggressive techniques. The guidance mirrored that issued by CITF in December 2002, stating
that "detainees will be treated humanely" and that "physical torture, corporal punishment and
mental torture are not acceptable interrogation tactics and are not allowed under any
circumstances.,,1ll0 The October 2003 guidance stated:
[CITF personnel will] not participate in any interrogation that violates this policy.
When CITF personnel are conducting a joint interrogation with another U.S.
government organization, and a member of that other organization employs
tactics that are, or appear to the investigator to be, inhumane or cruel and unusual,
the CITF personnel will immediately disengage from the interrogation, report the
incident to their CITF chain of command, and document the incident in a
memorandum for record. llIl

GTMO Seeks Approvalfor Two Additional Special Interrogation Plans
(U)

_
On November 13, 2003, MG Miller sent two memoranda to GEN Hill at
SOUfHCOM requesting approval of special interrogation plans for detainees
_
1112 Consistent with the Secretary of Defense's April authorization, MG Miller
notified GEN Hill of ITF-GTMO's intent to isolate the detainees. In addition, MG Miller
requested approval to conduct interrogations up to 16 hours and use various types of sound. The
plans also implied the use of other techniques, such as sensory deprivation, that were not
authorized by the Secretary in April. Both memos indicated that the techniques in the plans had
been previously used in the Slahi interrogation. In many ways, the techniques proposed in the
two new special interrogation plans mirrored techniques used in both the Slahi and Khatani
interrogations.

IllO

Special Interrogation Plan #3 (U)

DoD CITF', Memo for All Personnel Assigned to the DoD Criminal Investigative Task Force, Interrogation

Procedures Guidance (U) (October 3, 2003).
1111

Ibid.
,. MG Miller, Requestfor Approval ofIP for ISN

liiiiiiiIIiIuestfor Approval ofIP for
1113

MG Miller, Requestfor Approval ofIP for

at 2.

143

Special Interrogation Plan #4 (U)

1114

Ibid at 4.

1115

Ibid.

1116

Ibid at 2.

1117

Ibid at 5.

1118

Ibid at 6.

1119

Ibid. at 7.

1120

Ibid at 11.

1121

MG Miller, RequestforApproval ofIPfor ISN

at 2.

SOUTHCOM and OSD Recommend Approval ofSpecial
Interrogation Plans #3 & #4 (U)

_
On November 19,2003, General Hill sent the
interrogation plans to the Secretary of Defense. 1130 In memoranda accompanying the plans,

1122

Ibid at 8.

1123

Ibid. at 1.

1124

Ibid. at 7.

112~

Ibid.

1126

Ibid. at 9.

1127

Ibid. at 10.

1128

Ibid. at 9.

1129

Ibid. at 10.

145

Tom O'Connell, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations / Low
Intensity Conflict (SOLIC), attached a cover memo to the SOUTHCOM Commander's request,
recommending to the Secretary of Defense that he approve the plans. 1132 A coordination sheet
attached to that memo indicated that Daniel Dell 'Orto, the Principal Deputy DoD General
Counsel, had approved the plan on December 31, 2003 and Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gen Myers had approved the plan on January 2, 2004. The date ofthe Chairman's approval (and
possibly that ofthe Deputy DoD General Counsel) occurred after the Office of Legal Counsel
(OLe) at the Department of Justice withdrew its March 14, 2003 legal memo upon which DoD
had been relying for interrogation techniques. 1133 The OLC's notification to DoD General
Counsel Jim Haynes ofthat withdrawal occurred between December 25 and December 31,
2003. 1134 Mr. Haynes told the Committee that "the fact that the Department didn't have that
opinion to rely on... didn't mean that Mr. Dell'Orto or somebody ... could not [have] concluded
that something was legal in the absence ofthat memo. ,,113.5

DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Withdraws March 14,2003 Legal Opinion Governing
DoD Interrogations (U)

(U) In the final week of2003, the OLC notified the Department of Defense that the
March 14, 2003 OLC legal opinion, upon which DoD had been relying for interrogations, was
being withdrawn. 1136 According to the then-Assistant Attorney General for the OLe Jack
Goldsmith, the March 2003 memo was one ofa "short stack" of OLe opinions that his OLe
colleague Patrick Philbin had identified, shortly after Mr. Goldsmith arrived at DoJ, as
problematic and possibly containing "serious errors."U37 Also included in that "short stack"
were the two August 1,2002 "Bybee" memos - the "First Bybee" memo, which presented
OLe's narrow interpretation of what constituted torture under U.S. law and the "Second Bybee"
memo, which included OLC's "advice to the CIA regarding potential interrogation methods. ,,1138

1131

Ibid .

1132

Action Memo from Thomas O'Connell for Secre
(2003).

1133 Coordination, attached as Tab D to Action Memo from Thomas O'Connell for Secretary of Defense,
Inte"o ation Plans or

1134 Assistant Attorney General Goldsmith stated that he called the DoD General Counsel between Christmas and
New Year 2003. Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 153.

113~ Committee staff interview of William 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 295.
1136

Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 153-54.

1137

Ibid. at 142; Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February 4, 2008).

1138

Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February 4, 2008); Sixth Dec!' of Marilyn A. Dom, ~ 56,
04~Civ. 4151 (January 5,2007).

American CiviLLiberties Union, et aL v. Department ofDefense, et aL, No.

146

(U) After reviewing the opinions, Mr. Goldsmith identified two that he ultimately
rescinded, the March 14,2003 "¥oo Memo" (withdrawn in December 2003) and the August 1,
2002 "First Bybee" memo (withdrawn in June 2004).1139
(U) Mr. Goldsmith told the Committee that he called Jim Haynes in December 2003 and
told him the March 14,2003 OLC opinion was under review and could not be relied on by the
Department. 1140 That opinion had been presented to the Working Group as the controlling
authority for all questions of domestic and international law and was the legal foundation for the
Secretary's April 2003 authorization oftechniques for GTMO. Mr. Goldsmith told the
Committee that he informed Mr. Haynes in December 2003 that he had detennined that only 20
ofthe 24 techniques authorized b(' Secretary Rumsfeld were lawful, and that the remaining four
techniques were under review. 114 Mr. Goldsmith also advised Mr. Haynes in December that the
Department should come back to OLC for additional legal guidance before approving any
technique not among those 24 specifically identified in the Secretary's April 2003 memo. 1142
Mr. Goldsmith told the Committee that Mr. Haynes did not inquire about the use of additional
techniques during his tenure at OLC, which ended in June 2004. 1143

Notwithstanding the late December direction from the head of the OLC that DoD
could not rely on the March 14 2003 OLe memo a March 26 2004 memorandum for the record
su e ed that

1139 Assistant Attorney General Goldsmith said that his personal standard for rescinding prior OLC memos was to
rescind opinions only after he determined they were legally flawed and he could affumatively provide guidance on
"precisely what interrogation practices were legally available under a proper analysis." Goldsmith reiterated the
second part of this standard when asked ifhe considered withdrawing the third "problematic" opinion. known as the
"Second Bybee" memo. He told the Committee that he had not completed his analysis of the Second Bybee memo
by the time he submitted his resignation and left the Department. Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith
(February 4,2008); Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 152.
1140 In his book, Goldsmith stated that he placed the call between Christmas and New Years 2003. Goldsmith, The
Terror Presidency at 153.

In his interview with Committee staff, Mr. Goldsmith said he eventually determined that all 24 were lawful.
That account differs slightly from Goldsmith's account in his book, in which he said that he told Mr. Haynes in
December that all 24 techniques were lawful. Ibid. at 154; Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February
4,2008).
1141

1142

Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February 4,2008).

1143

Ibid.

1144

Schmidt-Furlow Report at 10.

1145

Memo for Record, Continuous Cell Transfer (Frequent Flyer Program) (March 26, 2004).

147

III

Continuous cell transfer was discussed at least as early as August 2003. An August 3,
2003 email from GTMO's ICE Operations Officer described interrogating a detainee for 15
hours, allowing him 5 hours of uninterrupted rest in his cell and then moving the detainee to a
new cell every half hour until the 24 hour period expired whereby, according to the Operations
Officer the cycle would restart and "the fun begins again.,,1146
(U) According to an FBI agent who was on assignment to GTMO in fall 2003, the agent
received a briefing "that non cooperative detainees could be placed on a list for a specific
interrogation technique involving intenuption of sleep pattern, called the 'frequent flyer
program.",1147 The agent stated that detainees were moved with all oftheir personal belongings
and that the duration ofthe program for detainees "seemed to depend on the cooperativeness of
the detainee.,,1148 In fact, an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General found
that "many FBI agents described a program of sleep disruption employed by the military as
designed to disorient detainees and thereby obtain their cooperation, which was known as the
'frequent flyer program.,,1149
(U) Keeping detainees awake except for a period of four-hours of uninterrupted sleep
using "Continuous cell transfer" or other means was not on the list of24 techniques OLe
advised the DoD General Counsel were permitted. The Committee is unaware of a request from
DoD to OLC for legal guidance on whether that technique comported with techniques on that list
of24 approved by the Secretary.

XI.

Development of Interrogation Policy in Afghanistan (U)

After the start of Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001,
d 10 ed a S ecial Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) to
Afghanistan with a missio
1150 While SMU TF operators
conducted a limited amount of direct questioning, or, "screening" of detainees while on the
battlefield, it appears that they did not conduct interrogations until at least October 2002.
(U) Prior to that point, SMU personnel had observed interrogations conducted by
Combined Joint Task Force 180 (CITF-180), which had assumed control of U.S. and coalition

1146

Email from Maj. James Rogers to COL Jack Farr (August 3, 2003).

1147

FBI Electronic Communication from Administrative Services (SAAPU) to Inspection Division (July 15,2004).

1148

Ibid.

1130"
1149

DoJ IG Report at 183.

Department of Defense, Interrogation Special Focus Team Report on Special Mission Unit Interrogation
Practices in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (October 28, 2004) at 3 (hereinafter
"Church Special Focus Team Report"). As part of his investigation of detention operations and detainee
interrogation techniques, Vice Admiral Albert Church examined interrogation techniques used by SMU in the
USCENTCOM area of responsibility. VADM Church's main report, released in March 2005, did not discuss the
SMUs. Rather an Interrogation Special Focus Team, Wlder the auspices of VADM Church's review, issued a
separate, classified annex that discussed SMU interrogation practices in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Though
completed in October, 2004, the SMU annex was not provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee until July
26,2006.

148

forces in Mghanistan at the end of May 2002. 1151 In addition to tactical questioning and
screening on the battlefield, CITF-180 personnel conducted more thorough interrogations at
detention facilities at Kandahar and Bagram. Between October 2001 and January 2003, the only
written guidance for interrogators operating in Mghanistan appears to have been Army Field
Manual 34-52. There were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), however, to guide the
implementation ofthe doctrine outlined in the Field Manual.
In fall 2002 the SMU conducted assessments of interrogation operations at
GTMO an
at Bagram Airfield. Those assessments
generated discussion about whether the SMU TF should conduct its own interrogations, separate
and apart from CITF-180, and which interrogation techniques should be permitted.
A.

Assessment Team VISit to Guantanamo Bay (U)

_ _ From October 8 through October 10, 2002, an SMU TF assessment team
from Mghanistan visited ITF-170 at Guantanamo Bay. 1152 The visit occurred just as ITF-170
personnel at GTMO were finalizing a request, submitted to SOUTHCOM on October 11,2002,
to use interrogation techniques including stress positions, removal of clothing, deprivation of
light and auditory stimuli, hooding, use of detainee phobias such as dogs, exposure to cold
weather or water, and non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking and pushing. 1153
A trip report prepared by the SMU TF assessment team, dated October
11, 2002, summarized the visit to GTMO. The report stated that the SMU TF team met with
members ofthe ITF-170 Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT).1154 Members of the
BSCT had recently attended training conducted by SERE instructors from JPRA and in the week
prior to the SMU TFteam's visit, two ofthem had written the first draft ofGTMO's request for
new interrogation authorities. 1155
_ _ According to the SMU TF assessment team's trip report, GTMO
"interrogation team psychologists" discussed interrogation approaches, including use of
"religious oriented superstitions, varied schedules, shame, various disruptions of daily routines,
and using ethnic interrogators.,,1156 The SMU team's trip report also suggested that the team
discussed with the ITF-170 Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief David Becker, the need

1152

Memo for the Record, GITMO Assessment Visit (October 11, 2002)

1153

Ibid at 3; LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies.

1154

Memo for the Record, GITMO Assessment Visit (October 11, 2002).

1m USASOC Requirement to Provide Exploitation Instruction (September 24, 2002); BSCT, Counter-resistance
Strategies.
1156

Memo for the Record, GITMO Assessment Visit (October 11, 2002)

149

for interrogators to have "SERE instructors' training for legal aspects of prisoner handling" and
stated that a "JPRA [Mobile Training Team] appears to be the best option" for the training. 1157
_ _ On October 26, 2002, after the SMU TF assessment team returned to
anista a ro osal was briefed to the SMU Commander. 1158
1159 The briefing stated that
with detainees, that "current interrogation methods are not
producing actionable intelligence," and that "mainstream interrogation [tactics, techniques, and
procedures] have limited success against [al Qa'ida] resistance techniques.,,1160 The briefmg
proposed new interrogation techniques such as the use of strip searches for "degradation;" hoods
for "sensory deprivation;" "sensory overload" through lights, darkness, noises, and dogs; and
manipulation ofthe detainees' environment through "cold, heat, wet, discomfort, etc...,,1161
Stripping detainees, the use of hoods, the use of dogs, and environmental manipulation were
among the interrogation techniques requested by GTMO. 1l62
_
A memo entitled "Detainee Operations," dated October 27,2002 (the day after
the SMU TF proposal was briefed), described the SMU team's visit to GTMO as well as the
team's assessment of interrogation operations at Bagram. 1163 With respect to operations at
GTMO, the memo stated that "Due to a lack of effective national-level guidance, the GTMO
staff is analogous to a weak. set of parents unsure oftheir role and parental skills who get
manipulated by elever and strong-willed children.,,1164 The memo stated that the SMU TF team
"assisted the [GTMO] staff in seeking advice and training from the IPRA staffregarding
effective interrogation techniques.,,1165

_ T h e October 27,2002 memo described some interrogators at Bagram as "outmatched" and stated that the SMU TF team's observations ofboth GTMO and Ba am led to the
co elusion that

1U7 Ibid. LTC Beaver, the GTMO SJA, specifically recommended in her review of the October II, 2002 techniques
memo submitted by ITF-170 (GTMO) to SOUTHCOM, that "the interrogators be properly trained in the use of the
approved methods of interrogation, n which included techniques similar to those used in SERE programs. LTe
Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies at 5.

IBS

Church Special Focus Team Report at 6.

1U~ Battlefield Exploitation Proposal (undated) at 2.
1160

Ibid at 4.

1161

Ibid at 5.

1162

LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, Requestfor Approval ojCounter-Resistance Strategies.

11&1

Memo, Detainee Operations (October 27, 2002) at 1.

1164

Ibid.

116'

Ibid. at 1-2.

1166 Ibid.

at 2.

150

_
The October 27,2002 memo also outlined a rationale for the SMU to conduct
its own interrogations.
1167 The memo recommended the "imaginative but legal use
ofnon-lethal psychological techniques (i.e., battlefield noises/chaos, barking dogs, etc.)" as well
as stress techniques such as "sensory deprivation (hoods, silence, flex cuffs), sensory overload
(shouting, gun shots, white noise, machinery noise) and manipulation ofthe environment (hot,
cold, wet. windy, hard surfaces).,,1168

,1170 The presentation
argued that actionable intelligence might be produced ''via psychologicaVphysical stress" and
listed "sensory deprivation," "sensory overload -lights darkness, noises, and dogs,"
"environment - cold, heat, wet and discomfort" and "psychological deception leading to learned
helplessness and increase compliance. ,,1171

_
The SMU TF also developed a "Decision Briefmg" with the goal of gaining the
CITF-180 Commanding General LTG Dan McNeil's approval for the SMU TF to construct and
operate its own interrogation facility for high value detainees co-located at the Bagram
Collection Point. l172 The briefing stated that CITF-180 was focused on the detention mission
rather than the interrogation mission, that "no advanced interrogation techniques" including
"sensory deprivation/overload, sleep deprivation, psychological manipulation" were employed
by CITF-180, and that current procedures were having only "limited success[es].1173
_
While the SMU briefing noted that "advanced interrogation techniques" were not
in use at Bagram prior to November 2002, Army investigations into the deaths oftwo detainees
at Bagram in early December revealed that, by early December 2002, at least one ofthe
techniques, sleep deprivation, was apparently in wide use there.

(U_
B.

The Deaths ofDilawar and Habibullah (U)

In December 2002, two detainees were killed while detained by CITF-180 at

Bagram. Though the techniques do not appear to have been included in any written interrogation
1167

Ibid. at 3.

1168

Memo, Detainee Operations (October 27,2002) at 3.

1 1 6 9 . Battlefield Detainee

Exploitation CONOP (November 3, 2002).

1170 Ibid. at 5. It is not clear from the slides whether any of the interrogation training was formal or informal
training. There is no indication that any of the SMU personnel available for the mission had any formal DoD
interrogation or debriefmg training.

1171.

Battlefield Detainee Exploitation CONOP (November 3, 2002) at 7-8.

un_Interrogations Operations Decision Briefing (undated).
U7'.l

Ibid.

151

policy at Bagram, Army investigators concluded that the use of stress positions and sleep
deprivation combined with other mistreatment at the hands ofBagram personnel, caused or were
ll74
direct contributing factors in the two homicides.
In the wake ofthe deaths of Habibullah and
Dilawar, CITF-180 and the SMU TF began developing written standard operating procedures
(SOPs) for interrogations.

_On
C.

Questions Raised About Task Force Participation in OGA Intt!n'ogations (U)

November 1, 2002, a month before the two detainee deaths at Bagram, the
SMU TF Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) analyzed legal authorities and constraints relevant to SMU
1175 The
TF personnel's participation in interrogations
SJA's analysis is reflected in a memo which was provided to the Committee in redacted fonn.
Although the particular interrogation techniques in use
were redacted from the
version ofthe memo shared with the Committee, unredacted portions ofthat memo discuss the
SMU TF's concerns about those techniques. 1176
_Although the memo stated that while, in the author's opinion, "none ofthe
interrogation techniques used or observed by ~redactedl personnel constitutes 'torture,'" it also
stated that "another observer might disagree. n 177 In addition, the memo stated that one ofthe
[redactedl.techniques "could rise to the level oftorture ifapplied in such a way and for such
a period of time that it rises to the level of severe physical pain or suffering. ,,1178 It also said that
"although the interrogation techniques may not constitute 'torture' they may rise to the level of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment proscribed by international law.,,1179

particularly ifthere is media scrutiny.n11S0 The memo referenced
applicable DoD policies and Department ofthe Army (DA) regulations requirin~
humane treatment of detainees and noted that although they might not apply t o _
operating in a non-DoD facility, "U.S. military personnel remain subject to those
authorities if [military personnel] participate in or run the interrogations. n11sl According

1174 U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Bagram Branch Office Memo, CID Report ofInvestigation FINAL -0134-02-CID36923533 (October 8, 2004).
1175 Memorandum for [Redacted], Legal Analysis of[Redacted] Personnel Participating in Interrogation _ _
Detention Facility [Redacted] (November 1, 2(02) at 1 (hereinafter "Personnel Participating in Interrogation at •
•
Detention Facility").

1176 Personnel Participating
1177 Ibid

at 4.

1178

Ibid. at 5.

1179

Ibid. at 2.

1180 Ibid.
1181

in Interrogation at _Detention Facility.

at 1.

Ibid. at 4.

152

to the memo, "these requirements arguably extend to military personnel even if 'detailed'
to_,1182
_
The memo warned that "we are at risk as we get more 'creative' and stray from
standard interrogation techniques and procedures taught at DoD and DA schools and detailed in
official interrogation manuals. ,,1183

~une 18, 2004 memorandum to the Naval Inspector General,
_ s a i d that after the SMU TF SJA _ m m a n d e r of the SMU
TF "restricted personnel from further i n v o l v e m e n t _ except for information
sharing.,,1184
D.

January 2003 Task Force Interrogation SOP (Afghanistan) (U)

On January 10, 2003 the SMU Task Force Commander in Mghanistan
approved the fIrst interrogation standard operating procedure (SOP) for the SMU Task Force. 118S
In addition to identifYing approaches from the Army Field Manual 34-52, the SOP approved four
additional interrogation "techniques" for use by SMU interrogators: isolation, multiple
interrogators, stress positions, and sleep deprivation. 1186 lbree ofthe four techniques approved
by the SMU TF - isolation, stress positions, and multiple interrogators - were among those
authorized by the Secretary of Defense for use at GTMO on December 2,2002. 1187 The fourth
technique - sleep deprivation (defmed by the SMU TF as "no less than 4 hours sleep in a 24hour period") - was, in effect, authorized by the Secretary on December' 2, 2002, when he
authorized the use of 20 hour interrogations. 1188
According to a summary of his statement to Church Report investigators,
the SMU interrogator who drafted the SMU SOP reviewed GTMO's list of requested counterresistance techniques prior to draftin~ the SOP and discussed incorporating some of those
techniques into the SMU's policy.u8 While the interrogator told Church Report investigators
that the interrogation techniques in use at GTMO "did not influence" the technique selection for
1182

Ibid.

1183

Ibid at 6.

1184 Memo from USSOCOM Staff Judge Advocate for the Naval Inspector Geneml, Response to Questionsfor the
Record (U) (June 18. 2004).

Department ofDefense_Battl¢eld Interrogation Team Standing Operating Procedures (10 January
2003); Church Special Focus Team Report at 7.

1185

Two of those techniques - stress positions and sleep deprivation - were already in use by cm -180
interrogators prior to the approval ofthe SMU TF SOP. Church Special Focus Team Report and Committee staff
interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (February 8,2008).

1186

1187

Church Special Focus Team Report at 8.

l1SS Church Special Focus Team Report, SecretaIy of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques
(December 2. 2002).
1189

Summary of Statement of SMU Member with Church Special Focus Team Report Investigator (September 15,

2004).

153

the SMU SOP, an investigation completed by the Department of Defense Inspector General in
2006 concluded that the SMU SOP "was influenced by the counter-resistance memorandum that
the Secretary of Defense approved on December 2,2002.,,1190
_ _ In addition, the SMU TF Legal Advisor who served in Afghanistan from
late November 2002 until early January 2003 (just before the SMU TF SOP was issued) said that
the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 authorization ftenerated discussion at the SMU TF
and influenced his thinking about interrogation techniques. 1 91 A legal review ofthe SMU TF's
January 10, 2003 interrogation SOP, conducted by the SMU Legal Advisor who took over that
job in early January, supports the DoD Inspector General's conclusion that the SOP was
influenced by the Secretary's December 2, 2002 authorization. 1192 In his legal review, the SMU
TF Legal Advisor referred to the techniques authorized by the Secretary of Defense for GTMO,
including stress positions, isolation, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, hooding, 20 hour
interrogations, removal of clothing, and the use of dogs to induce stress, and stated:

SECDEF's approval of these techniques provides us the most persuasive
argument for use of 'advanced techniques' as we capture possible [high value
targets] or those that are enablers and have intelligence value of [high value
targets] ... the fact SECDEF approved use of the [CAT I/II/III] techniques at
GTMO, subject to the same laws, provides an analogy and basis for use of these
techniques [in accordance with] international and U.S. law. 1193
_
The SMU TF Legal Advisor concluded that the interrogation SOP proposed for
use by the SMU was in accordance with their "guidance and constraints," and therefore, "legally
sufficient.,,1194 In addition, the Legal Advisor recommended that the SMU "continue to
approach CENTCOM for clarifying guidance on whether the techniques apparently approved for
use at GITMO by SECDEF ... are applicable or can become applicable for use in the CENTCOM
AOR [area ofresponsibility]. If so incorporate those Category II techniques that are deemed
necessary for [the SMU's] success.,,1195

CJTF-180Produces Memorandum on Interrogation Techniques (U)

_Following his January 15,2003 rescission of authority for GTMO to use the
interrogation techniques he had previously authorized in December 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld

1190

Ibid; DoD IG Report at 15-16.

1191

Committee staff interview of SMU TF Legal Advisor 1 (May 29, 2(08).

1192 Memo from. Legal Advisor for COMITF -5, Legal Review o.Battlefield Interrogation Team & BIT
SOP (January 11, 2(03) at 11 (hereinafter "Legal Review o~Battlefield Interrogation Team & BIT SOP
(January 11, 2003)").
1193

Legal Review o.Battlefield Interrogation Team & BIT SOP (January 11, 2003) at 11.

11!14

Ibid

119' Ibid. at 16. The SMU TF Legal Advisor also stated presciently that, "we are at risk as we get more 'creative' and
stray from standard interrogation techniques and procedures taught at DoD and Service schools and detailed in
official interrogation manuals."

154

directed the establishment ofthe DoD Working Group on Interrogations. 1196 As discussed
above, the Working Group requested that the Joint Staff provide a list of interrogation techniques
"currently in effect or previously employed in CENTCOM and SOUfHCOM, techniques the
combatant commanders have found to be effective, and techniques the combatant commanders
desire to implement with accompanying rationale.,,1197 CENTCOM sent the Working Group's
request to CJTF-180 and, in response, the CJTF-180 Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) LTC
Robert Cotell produced a January 24, 2003 memo describing "current and past" interrogation
techniques used byCJTF-180 interrogatorsY98 LTC Cotell's memo was sent to the Working
Group and to the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense. 1199
_
In his January 24, 2003 memo, LTC Cotell identified interrogation techniques
used by CJTF-180, including up to 96 hours of isolation; the use of female interrogators to create
"discomfort" and gain more information; sleep adjustment, defmed as "four hours of sleep every
24 hours, not necessarily consecutive;" use of individual fears; removal of comfort items; use of
safety positions; isolation; deprivation oflirt and sound in living areas; the use ofa hood during
interrogation; and mild physical contact. 120
_ L T C Cotell's January 24,2003 memo also recommended use of five additional
techniques, including "deprivation of clothing" to put detainees in a "shameful, uncomfortable
situation;" "food deprivation;" "sensory overload - loud music or temperature regulation;"
"controlled fear through the use of muzzled, trained, military working dogs;" and ''use of light
and noise deprivation,,1201
(U) LTC Cotell's memo included techniques that were among those Secretary Rumsfeld
had authorized for use at GTMO in December 2002. CJTF-180 had obtained a list ofthose
techniques prior to LTC Cotell drafting his January 24, 2003 memo. 1202
(U) JTF-GTMO's Interrogation Control Element (ICE) ChiefLt Col Ted Moss stated that
sometime in January 2003, CPT Carolyn Wood, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Intelligence
Section at the Bagram Collection Point asked JTF-GTMO about their "parameters" for
interrogation. 1203 According to Lt Col Moss, the GTMO Operations Officer faxed the Secretary
of Defense's December 2,2002 memo authorizing interrogation techniques to CJTF-180. CPT
11!16 See section VITI.
1197.Memo, Proposed Detainee Inte"ogation Working Group Responsibilities (Initial) (undated) at I.
1198 Church Report at 197; Memorandum from CJTF- I 80-0PS LAW for CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation
Techniques (January 24, 2(03) at I (hereinafter "CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2(03)").

1199tJs Central Command Action Processing Form, Approvalfor the Use ofCertain Interrogation Techniques in
CJTF-180 's AOR (April 4, 2003). Memo from Deputy Commander (Forward) U. S. Central Command, Responses
to Requestfor Information from VADM Church (August 6, 2004).
1200 CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at 8. The Church Report called the distinction between
stress positions and safety positions at the Bagram Collection Point "largely academic." Church Report at 200.
1201

CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2(03) at 4-5, 9.

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002); CJTF 180 Inte"ogation
Techniques (January 24, 2003).

1202

1203

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007).

155

Wood said that, in early January, she saw a "secret power point presentation" containing the
techniques authorized for use at GTMO but did not recall where she had obtained the power
point presentation. 1204 Lt Col Moss did not know if JTF-GTMO had also sent CJTF-180 the
Secretary's letter that rescinded the use ofthose techniques. 120S

II In his January 24, 2003 memorandum, LTC Cotell, the CrrF-180 Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate acknowledged that the Secretary of Defense had rescinded authority to use similar
interrogation techniques at GTMO, stating that "[p]rior to their rescission, CJTF-180 used
selected techniques contained in SOUTHCOM's Cat II & III techniques ...,,1206
Notwithstanding that knowledge, however, the Church Report concluded that "in the absence of
any contrary guidance from CENTCOM, JCS, or OSD," CJTF-180 "considered the techniques in
their [January 24,2003] memo as available for use.,,1207 A summary of an interview with the
Deputy SJA at CENTCOM stated that ''the methodologies approved for GTMO... would appear
to me to be legal interrogation processes. [The Secretary of Defense] had approved them. The
General Counsel had approved them... I believe it is fair to say the procedures approved for
Guantanamo were legal for Mghanistan.,,1208
(U) In 2004, the Deputy Commander (Forward) U.S. Central Command LTG (later GEN)
John Abizaid stated that the January 24, 2003 memorandum had been ''thoroughly reviewed" by
the Working Group. 1209

III

Within three weeks ofthe January 24, 2003 memo, the SMU TF in Mghanistan
added the use of dogs to its interrogation policy.1210 Just over two months after the Secretary had
authorized dogs for use in interrogations at JTF-GTMO, the technique had become part of
interrogation SOPs for both the conventional forces and the SMU TF in Mghanistan.
F.

CENTCOM Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques (U)

_
A week after the DoD Working Group on interrogations completed its report and
just five days before the Secretary issued his April 16, 2003 guidance for SOUTHCOM, Deputy
Commander of U.S. Central Command Lt Gen Michael DeLong sent a memorandum to the Vice
Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, requesting assistance in obtaining the
Secretary of Defense's a~R~oval of interrogation techniques requested by CJTF-180 in their
January 24, 2003 memo.
1204 Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (August 15, 2006) at 15; Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn
Wood (Febroary 11, 2008).
1205

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2(07).

1206

CJTF 180 Inten'ogation Techniques (January 24, 2(03) at 10.

1207 Church Special Focus Team Report, see also Church Reporl at 6 for an unclassified accounting of the January
24, 2003 CJTF-180 memorandum for CENTCOM and the Joint Staff.
1208

Summary of Church Report interview of CENTCOM Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (July 15, 2004).

1209 Memorandum from Deputy Commander (Forward) U.S. Central Command, Responses toRequestfor
Informationfrom VADM Church (August 6, 2004).
1210

Church Special Focus Team Reporl at 11.

1211

Memo for the Vice Chairman Joint Chief of Staff (April 11, 2003).

156

.The request came shortly after CAPT Jane Dalton, Legal Counsel for the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff had informed Barry Hammill, CENTCOM's Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate (SJA), that the Secretary of Defense's guidance on interrogation techniques would
likely apply only to GTMO. 1212 CAPT Dalton had been informed by DoD General Counsel Jim
Haynes that he would only concur in providing the techniques to SOUTHCOM, not to
CENTCOM. 1213 CAPT Dalton recalled that CENTCOM had requested techniques in their
January 24, 2003 memo and told CENTCOM's lawyers that she could ask the Chairman to
engage with the Secretary of Defense on their behalf, ifthey were interested in using the
techniques authorized for GTMO. 1214
_
In his memorandum to Gen Pace, dated April 11, 2003, LTG DeLong said that
CENTCOM understood that "OSD may be close to making a decision that would be unfavorable
to the use ofthe requested interrogation techniques at the [Bagram Collection Point]" and was
concerned that disapproval ofthe techniques requested by CITF-I80 would "lead to mission
degradation."l2lS The memo noted that the Commander of ITF-180, LTG McNeill, had
"specifically endorsed" the CITF-180 request to use aggressive techniques, including individual
fears, black out goggles, deprivation of light and sound, sleep adjustment, threat oftransfer to
another agency or country, and safety positions. 1216 Lt Gen DeLong requested the assistance of
VCJCS Gen Pace "in ensuring OSD approval" for the requested techniques. 1217

XII.

Development of Interrogation Pollcy in Iraq (U)

_
On March 20, 2003, a month before Lt Gen DeLong's request, the United
States and its coalition partners had launched Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). During the initial
stages ofOIF, conventional ground forces were directed by the Coalition Forces Land
Component Command (CFLCC). Combined Joint Task Force 7 CITF-7 r laced CFLCC in
the summer of 2003. As had been the case in Afghanistan,
_
deployed a Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) to Iraq to
_1218

(U) As previously described, for more than a year after the onset ofthe war in
Afghanistan, the only written guidance for interrogators appears to have been Anny Field
Manual 34-52 (FM 34-52). When written policies were fmally established for interrogators in
Afghanistan in January 2003, those policies included some interrogation techniques that were not
listed in the Field Manual but had been previously authorized for use at Guantanamo Bay.

1212 Email from CAPT Jane Dalton to William Hammill, CAPT Shelley Young, William Gade (April 2, 2003).
1213 Memo from CAPT Jane Dalton to VADM Church, Requestfor Information (August 10,2004) at 5.
1214 Email from CAPT Jane Dalton to William Hammill, CAPT Shelley Young, William Gade (April 2, 2003).
1m Ibid.
1216 Ibid.
1217 Ibid
121S_Memorandum for A l I _ Personnel, Policy No. 1- Battlefield Interrogation Team and Facility
(BITIF) Policy (July 15, 2003) (hereinafter "BITIF Policy (July 15,2003)").

157

(U) By comparison, the Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task. Force (TF) in Iraq had an
interrogation policy in place before the beginning ofOIF. This policy was identical to the
February 2002 policy in use at the SMU Task Force in Mghanistan and reflected the influence of
techniques authorized for use at GTMO. 1219 The first policy to guide interrogations conducted
by conventional forces in Iraq, however, was not established until September 2003, more than
five months after that war began. That September 2003 policy was also influenced by techniques
authorized for use at GTMO.

Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Policies (U)

(U) According to a review completed by the DoD Inspector General in August 2006, the
SMU TF based its first interrogation policy on the SOP used by the SMU TF in Mghanistan.
The DoD Inspector General stated:
At the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the special mission unit forces

used a January 2003 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which had been
developed for operations in Mghanistan. The Mghanistan SOP was influenced
by the counter-resistance memorandum that the Secretary of Defense approved on
December 2, 2002. . . and incorporated techniques designed for detainees who
were identified as 'unlawful combatants. 01223
_
Specifically, in February 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq in March, the SMU
Task Force designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy ofthe interrogation SOP in use by
the SMU personnel in Mghanistan, changed the letterhead, and adopted the SOP verbatim. 1224
This SOP, which included stress positions, sleep deprivation, and the use of dogs, governed
differences between the legal status of detainees held in Iraq and those in Afghanistan, the
SMU IF used the same interrogation approaches in both theaters. In addition, the cm -7 interrogation policies
included techniques that had been authorized for use at GTMO. By September 2003, interrogation approaches
initially authorized for a war in which the President had determined that the protections of the Geneva Conventions
did not apply, would be authorized for all U.S. forces in Iraq.
1219 Notwithstanding

1DO
1221

Church Special Focus ream Report at 3.

11 BITffi' Po&y (July IS, 2003).

1m DoD IG, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005)~eml Officer Questionnaire for

(June 29, 2004) at 2 (hereinafter
1223

DoD IG Report at 16.
Church Special Focus Team Report at 12.

158

Questionnaire (June 29, 2004)").

SMU interrogations in Iraq from the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 until it was
replaced later t hat year. 1225"

OGA Comments on SMU TF Interrogation Techniques (U)

_ I n May 2003, CAPT Dalton, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, sent an email to CENTCOM lawyers stating that CIA General Counsel Scott Muller had
called Jim Haynes and told him that the techniques used by military interrogators at the SMU TF
facility in Iraq were "more aggressive" than techniques used by CIA to interrogate the same
detainees. 1226
_ T h e email requested that CENTCOM provide a list of interrogation techniques in
use at Ba am in Af: anistan and at the SMU Task Force facility in Iraq. On June 8, 2003, the
Legal Advisor provided CENTCOM with a list of
interrogation techniques in use by the SMU TF in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1227 That list included
the presence of military working dogs, stress positions (called comfort positions in the memo),
sleep management, loud music and light control, and 20 hour interrogations. 1228 _
Legal Advisor did not recall receiving any feedback about the list of interrogation techniques
submitted to CENTCOM. 1229 Despite the presence ofaggressive techniques in the JSOC Legal
Advisor's June 8 memo, on June 10,2003 CENTCOM Deputy Commander, LTG Delong, sent a
message to the Director ofthe Joint Staff LTG George Casey stating that "I have conftrmed that
the military interrogations at both [the SMU TF facility in Iraq] and Bagrarn are conducted using
doctrinally appropriate techniques in accordance with [Army Field Manual] 34-52 and SECDEF
direction.,,12!O

July 2003 Interrogation SOP Drafted/or Iraq SMU TF (U)

_
A July 15, 2003 SMU interrogation SOP apgears to have been the first
interrogation policy drafted specifically by the SMU TF in Iraq. 231 The list of interrogation
techniques in that SOP included "vary comfort positions" (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone);

122~ . . Although the Church Special Focus Team Report concluded that the SOP the SMU IF had acquired
from its sister unit in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq remained in effect for the SMU IF in Iraq until it was
replaced on October 25, 2003, the Committee was advised that an unsigned July 15, 2003 SOP was in effect for the
SMU IF in Iraq. Church Special Focus Team Report at 12. Committee staff interview of SMU Legal Advisor 1
(May 29, 2008).
1226 Email from CAPT Jane Dalton to CAPT Shelley Young and Mr. William Hammill (April 2, 2003).
1227. Memo from the"Legal Advisor to Staff Judge Advocate, USCENTCOM,Joint TaskForces"
Battlefield Inte"ogation Techniques (June 8, 2003); Church Special Focus Team Report at 12.

•

1228~Memo

from the_Legal Advisor to Staff Judge Advocate, USCENTCOM,Joint Task Forces.

IIBattlefield Inte"ogation Techniques (June 8, 2003).
1229 Ibid.; Church Special Focus Team Report at 12.
1230 Message from CENTCOM Deputy Commander (June 10, 2003).
1231 BITIF Policy (July 15, 2(03) at 1.

159

presence of mili~ working dogs; 20-hour interrogations; isolation; and yelling, loud music,
and light control. 12 2
(U) While the SOP described some techniques as having a "foundation" in Army Field
Manual 34-52, Lieutenant General Anthony Jones and Major General George Fay, who
conducted an investigation into the 205th MI Brigade at Abu Ghraib, described techniques in the
July 15, 2003 SMU SOP as "inconsistent with Army doctrine on detainee treatment or
.
.
. ,,1233
mterrogation tactics.

e Jul 15,2003 policy contained th~fthe SMU TF
Commander
but was unsigned. 1234 ~ told the Committee
that he did not think he ever approved or even saw an interrogation policy. 1 3S He stated,
however, that he was aware that the SMU TF used sleep deRrvation, loud music, light control,
isolation, "comfort positions," and military working dogs. l 6 The SMU Task For~
Advisor who served at the facility in July and August 2003 stated that he was sure_ _
_
saw the policy, that he asked him to sign it, and that a copy ofthe policy sat in the
Commander's inbox during the Legal Advisor's deployment to the Task Force. 1237
_ _ The SMU Task Force's Legal Advisor who arrived at the TF ~
~st 2003 likewise said that his predecessor had tried, without success, to get_
_
to sign the policy. 1238 That same Legal Advisor stated that he too tried numerous times,
also unsuccessfully, to get the Commander to sign the policy. The Legal Advisor added that it
~ere he would print out a fresh copy ofthe policy every night and give it to
_ a i d e . The Legal Advisor said that he knew the Commander had received
copies ofthe policy from his aide, but that he had a habit of repeatedly "losing" the draft
policy.1239 He said that the exercise became "lau able" and eventually, he was forced to raise
the issue with the
legal advisor. 1240 In the absence o .
guidance, the Legal Advisor told the Committee that his direction to SMU
personnel was that the unsigned SOP applied to SMU TF interrogations.
_
The SMU Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence officer (J2X) who
served at the SMU facility told the Committee that a list of authorized interrogations approaches
1232

Ibid. at 5.

BUIF Policy (July 15,2(03) at 5; Review of Department of Defense Detention and Interrogation Operations,
Senate Committee on Armed Services, 108th Cong., S. Hrg. 108-868 (May 7, 11, 19; July 22; September 9, 2004) at
1294.

1233

1234 B/TIF Policy

(July 15, 2(03) at 3.

123!

Committee staff interview of

1236

Ibid

1237

Committee staff interview of SMU Legal Advisor 1 (May 29, 2008).

1238

The SMU IF Legal Advisor added that he would be surprised if the Committee found anything wi~
signature on it. Committee staff interview of SMU TF Legal Advisor 2 (March 12, 2008).

_
1239

(October 11,2(07).

Ibid

1240 Ibid

160

was posted on a wall at the SMU TF facility.1241 He specifically recalled stress positions, loud
music, light control, isolation, allowing a minimum amount of time for sleep, and military
working dogs as techniques authorized for use in interrogations. He stated that, although
military working dogs were not typically present at the SMU TF facility, he recalled making a
phone call to arrange for a military working dog to be present for an interrogation.
While neither the January 10,2003 nor the July IS, 2003 SMU policies
included "removal of clothin " there is evidence that it was used as an interrogation technique at
the SMU TF.
who took command at the SMU TF in October 2003,
stated that when he arrived on site he "discovered that some ofthe detainees were not allowed
clothes" as an interrogation technique ''to gain control over the detainee.',1242
stated that he did not know where the technique came from and that he was u ~
stripping detainees even though "arguably, it was an effective technique.,,1243 _
said he terminated the practice in December 2003 or January 2004. 1244
_
However, the SMU TF Legal Advisor who served at the SMU T~ from
December 2003 until February 2004 stated that he attended a meeting called by _ _
_
in December 2003 or January 2004 to discuss the use of stripping prisoners as part of
interrogations. 1245 The Legal Advisor stated that stripping detainees gave him pause but said that
the technique was 'widespread" at that time. 1246 He said that he advised the Commander that, if
stripping were to be authorized, it should be limited to males only and that naked detainees
should not be paraded through the Task Force facility. The Le~thattwo SMU
TF behavioral scientists who also attended the meeting advised...__not to pennit
interrogators to strip detainees because of the implications of nudity in Arab culture. The Legal
Advisor stated that the Commander nevertheless decided at the meeting that the SMU TF would
continu~an interrogation techni~ Advisor stated that he
t h o u g h t _ m a y have said that he~ould have to approve its

use.
lIIsoth LTG Ricardo Sanchez, the Commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), and COL Thomas Pappas, the Commander of the 20S th Military Intelligence Brigade (20S th
MI BDE) in Iraq told the Committee that they were unaware of what interrogation techniques
were authorized for use at the SMU TF facility.1247 Interrogators from the 20Sth MI BDE,
however, served at the SMU TF in support of interrogation operations there. In mid-June 2003,
at the request ofthe SMU TF, CJTF-7 assigned two Arabic-speaking interrogators to the

1141

Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5, 2(08).
Questionnaire (June 29, 2(04) at 3.

1142
1143

Ibid

1144

Ibid

114'

Committee staff interview of SMU TF Legal Advisor 1 (May 29,2(08).

1246

Ibid

1147 Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007); Committee staff interview of LTG
Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2(07).

161

SMU. 1248 COL Pappas recalled sending a second set of approximately two to four interrogators
from the 20S th MI BDE to the SMU TF around November 2003 to replace the 20S th MI BDE
personnel already serving at the SMU. 1249
(U) According to LTG Sanchez, CJTF-7 would have retained UCMJ authority over the
interrogators and the interrogators would have been re~uired to conduct interrogations under the
CJTF-7 authorities rather than those at the SMU TF. 12S COL Pappas, however, believed that
once his interrogators were sent to the SMU TF, they were that they were bound by the rules of
the SMU TF and not CJTF-7 interrogation guidance. 12S1

Iraq Survey Group Concerns with SMU TF Detainee Treatment (U)

(U) The Iraq Survey Group was established in June 2003. According to its frrst
Commander MG Keith Dayton, the ISG's mission was to find weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) or evidence ofWMD and to provide support to the CIA special advisor on WMD. 12S2
MG Dayton reported directly to the CENTCOM Commander, GEN John Abizaid. As part of its
effort to gather intelligence on WMD, the ISG debriefed and interrogated high value detainees,
such as former members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Some of those detainees had been
captured and interrogated by the SMU TF and other operational units before being handed over
to the ISG. From the onset, ISG personnel had concerns about the SMU TF's treatment of
detainees.

(U) MG Dayton told the DoD Inspector General that "as our interrogators started getting
into the swing of things at Camp Crogper... some ofthe prisoners were alleging that they had
been roughed up" by the SMU T~on stated that his Joint Interrogation and
Debriefing Center (JIDC) Chie~had described the situation as "a disaster
waiting to happen" and believed that ISG needed to "slam some rules on this place right away to
basically ke~ ourselves from getting in trouble and make sure these people are treated
properly. ,,12
(U)
said that he first became aware of allegations of detainee mistreatment
while at the ISG facilities in the first week in June 2003. 125S At that time, a Chief Warrant Officer
1148

USCENTCOM to CDR CJTF7, CFC FRAGO 09-278 Arabic Linguist Interrogator SUPportlDTG 141543Z

JUN 03 (June 14, 2003).
Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007). An interrogator with the haq Survey
Group (ISG) who visited the Task Force facilities regularly recalled that at some point after June 2003 he saw
interrogators from the 323 n1 MI BN (which was also providing interrogators to Abu Ghraib) whom he knew as he
had trained some of them in Kuwait prior to the war. Committee staff interview of CWO Brian Searcy (June 4.
2007).
1249

1250

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2007).

11!1

Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007).

1252

DoD IG. Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25,2005) at 10. 12. 19,30.52.

12!3

DoD IG, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25,2005) at 18.

12!4

Ibid. at 19.

Statement of

(August 9, 2004).

162

told him that a detainee she was interrogating ha~ical abuse during his capture and
subsequent interrogation by SMU TF personnel. _
stated that "by mid-June 2003. a
pattern ofreports ofabuse of prisoners (abuse primarily attributed to [the SMU TF] during their
capture and interrogation of [high value targets] and other detainees, was coming to me...,,1256
liMO Dayton described what he called a "notorious case" ofalleged detainee abuse, in
which a badly burned detainee was brought to the ISO facility.1257 MO Dayton stated that
according to the "special forces guys," the detainee had been captured on a very hot day. was
thrown down on the metal floor on the Humvee, and during the long drive back from the
operation, the detainee had "burned himself lying on the floor ofthe Humvee.,,125S
(U) Throughout the summer and autumn of 2003, ISO personnel continued to be
concerned about the treatment of detainees by SMU TF personnel.
stated that,
during the last week in June 2003, a British interrogator reported to him that a detainee who had
been captured and interrogated by the SMU TF 6'was beaten so severely, that he had the MPs at
said he was told that the
Camp Cropper note the [detainee's] condition.,,1259 _
detainee's "back was almost broken, his nose was probably broken, and he had two black eyes,
plus multiple contusions on his face.',1260

II According to the SMU TF Legal Advisor who served at the facility in July and

~ g one

ofthe nightly briefmgs held at the SMU TF Joint Operations Center,
_ t h e SMU TF Commander, said "continue to work him over" and 66work him
at the SMU TF. 1261 The Legal
hard" in reference to a particular detainee being interr_ated
made that statement, that
Advisor said that about SO people were present when
he (the Legal Advisor) was concerned about the message it co~ subsequently
spoke to the Commander about it. The Legal Advisor said that~ade a similar
statement on a video teleconference,
_
MG Dayton recalled that
s
heard that
detainee mistreatment with him. According to MO Dayton,
"rumors" ofdetainee mistreatment were cirCUlatiMfiii'n
and "he wanted to set [MG Dayton'~nd
at rest,',1262 MO Dayton recalled that he spoke t
a few times and that.
_ t o l d him "You're going to hear rumors,
1 sa -1 sail untrue,',1263
(U) In addition to allegations ofmistreatment by the SMU TF,
the JIDC
Chiefsaid that he was informed in early June that the JCRC had visited a facility run by the 323
12!6

Ibid. at 9.

1131

DoD IG, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2(05) at 20.

12J8

Ibid at 2I.

12S11

Statement of

(August 9, 2004) at 9.

1uoIbid.
1~1 Committee staff interview of SMU TF Legal Advisor I (May 29, 2008).
1262

DoD IG, Interview of MG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005) at 50.

1161

Ibid. at 29.

163

InterrogationPolici.esfor Conventional Forces in Iraq (U)
1.

CJTF-7 Stands Up (Summer 2003) (U)

(U) In May 2003, Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) began preparations to take over
from CFLCC as the operational headquarters for all conventional ground units in the Iraqi
theater. The CJTF-7 Commander, LTG Sanchez, stated that during summer 2003, the general
belief was that the number offorces in Iraq had to shrink as quickly as possible and that,
accordingly, CENTCOM and CFLCC reduced troop levels "very, very rapidly.,,1266 LTG
Sanchez said that the drawdown left insufficient personnel behind for CITF-7 to fulfill its
mission as well as inadequate command structures, planning capacities, and intelligence
capabilities. He said that during the handover "there were no intelligence structures that were
transferred to [CJTF-7] from CFLCC" and, as a result, the remaining intelligence structure did
not enable CJTF-7 to address the requirements ofa Combined Joint Task Force operating at a
"strategic, operational, and tacticallevel.,,1261
(U) LTO Sanchez stated that by July 2003, it was evident "that CJTF-7 was engaged in a
counterinsurgency operation that would be difficult if not impossible to win without significant

1264

Email from

to ISG Personnel (JlD1e 17, 2003).

126'

Email from

to ISG Personnel (June 17, 2003).

1266

Army IG, Interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 26, 2004) at 2-3.

1267 Ibid.

at 10.

164

improvements in the intelligence capabilities of [CJTF_7].,,1268 LTG Sanchez said that he was
particularly concerned about his HUMINT capabilities, including the level of interrogation
expertise within CJTF-7, and that he "seriously questioned the training and experience of our
interrogators. 1269
(U) LTG Sanchez said he posed a challenge to his staff: "How do we ensure that we have
the right mechanisms in place that allow our interrogators to push the limit of our authorities yet
prevent a violation ofthe Geneva Convention and our duty to treat detainees humanely?,,127o He
said that "references to the [Field Manuals] and doctrine were common responses but the issues
being faced were beyond the scope ofthe Army's limited doctrine.,,1271 LTG Sanchez added that
there was frustration about the ability to get a handle on the insurgency and that he put a
tremendous amount of pressure on his intelligence officers. 1272
(U) The Commander of the 205 th Military Intelligence Brigade, COL Pappas, said that
soon after arriving in theater in July 2003, CJTF-7's Chief ofStaffBG Daniel Hahn directed him
to attend a meeting to brief LTG Sanchez on interrogation operations. 1273 COL Pappas told the
Committee that he learned at that meeting that LTG Sanchez was concerned that interrogations
had not generated the expected intelligence infonnation. 1274 COL Pappas said that LTG Sanchez
"believed that ifthe brigade improved its interrogation tactics, techniques, and procedures, that
we would get the information necessary to stop the insurgency.,,127S COL Pappas agreed and
told LTG Sanchez that his interrogators would need the authority to use additional interrogation
techniques to accomplish that goal. 1276

Interrogation Operations Begin at Abu Ghraib (U)
th

(U) In mid-Summer 2003, the 205 MI BDE began preparing for Operation Victory
Bounty, an undertaking designed to track down remaining elements ofthe Fedayeen Saddam, a
paramilitary organization loyal to Saddam Hussein. 1277 In late July 2003, ten to twelve members
ofthe 519t1i MI Battalion went to Abu Ghraib to establish interrogation operations in anticipation
ofreceiving individuals captured during Victory Bounty.1278 On August 4,2003, CPT Carolyn
Wood, the 519th MI Battalion Assistant Operations Officer, assumed duties as the Interrogation

1168

Ibid at 5.

1269

Ibid at 6.

1210

Ibid at 7.

1271

Ibid.

1272

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2001).

1273 The CITF-7 Commander, his senior staff, and division Commanders attended the meeting. Committee staff
interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2001).
1274

Ibid.

127~ Army IG, Interview of COL Thomas Pappas (August 24, 2006) at 6.
1276

Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2001).

1277

DoD News Briefmg (August 7, 2003).

1278

Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8, 2006) at4.

165

Officer in Charge (OIC) at the facility.1279 In late 2002, she had served as the Interrogation
Operations Officer at the Bagram detention facility in Mghanistan.
(U) According to CPT Wood, no SOP was in place for interrogations when she took
command, but interrogations were conducted "within the approved ~proaches within the Field
Manual 34-52 only, with the possible addition of stress positions.,,12 0 CPT Wood stated that
interrogators had used sleep deprivation and stress positions in Mghanistan and that she
"perceived the Iraq experience to be evolving into the same operational environment as
Mghanistan,,1281 She said that she used her "best judgment and concluded [the techniques]
would be effective tools for interrogations at [Abu Ghraib].,,1282 She also said that she later put
together a request for additional interrogation options because "the winds of war were changing"
and there was "mounting pressure from higher for 'actionable intelligence' from interrogation
operations.,,1283 CPT Wood said that she did not want to repeat her experience in Mghanistan,
where interrogators lacked written guidance. 12&4

51 VJ' MI Battalion at Abu Ghraib Seeks Additional Guidance (U)

(U) CPT Wood said that guidance for interrogators about the rules for interrogations was
th
important because the interrogators in the 519 Battalion had come to Abu Ghraib with a range
of different experiences:
A lot of the interrogators and analysts also served in Guantanamo Bay and
Mghanistan where some other techniques were approved for use ... I understood
the Mghanistan rules were a little different because the detainees were not
classified as EPWs. It was, ''use techniques in the spirit of the Geneva
convention," not, ''you will apply the Geneva Convention." In order to use those
similar techniques from GTMO and Mghanistan in Iraq, we sought approval from
the higher command. 1285
(U) COL Pappas, CPT Wood's superior officer, said he knew that CPT Wood believed
she needed additional techniques and told her to submit a request. 1286

4.
12'19

51 VJ' MI BN Proposes Interrogation Policy (U)

Ibid at 3.

1280 Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004); Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn
Wood (February 11, 2008).
1281

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 21, 2004).

1282

Ibid

1283

Ibid

1284

Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (February 11, 2008).

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 3. Additionally, CITF-7 Commander LTG
Sanchez said a key pwpose of his eventually issuing an interrogation policy was to regulate approach techniques
believed derived, in part, from techniques used in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. Statement by LTG Ricardo
Sanchez to the Department of the Army Inspector General (October 2004) at 7.

128'

1286

Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007).

166

(U) On July 26, 2003, CPT Wood submitted a proposed interrogation policy to her chain
of command. The proposed policy was based on the interrogation policy in use at the SMU TF
facility in Iraq.1287 CPT Wood said that she and her staff simply "cleaned up some ofthe
grammar, changed the headin~ and signature block, and sent it up" to CJTF-7 as a proposed
policy for the 519 th MI BDE. 1 88

Mirroring the SMU TF policies, CPT Wood's proposed policy included sleep
management, ''vary comfort positions" (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone), presence of military
working dogs, 20-hour interrogations, isolation, and yelling, loud music, and light control. 1289
The proposed policy stated that "EPWs that refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or
exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.,,1290 The prohibition against
threats, insults and exposure to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment, however, was limited to
EPWs and CPT Wood stated that, to her knowledge, there were no EPWs held at Abu Ghraib. 1291
(U) CPT Wood stated that submitting the proposed interrogation policy seemed a "natural
progression" to her as she understood the techniques were already approved for use at the SMU
TF in Iraq, and the policy was "similar to that ofa document that was drafted in Afghanistan for
the [Bagram Collection Point] as well as ... GTMO.,,1292 CPT Wood did not hear back from
CJTF-7 at that time. 1293 Just a few weeks later CJTF-7 itself solicited a "wish list" of
interrogation techniques.

CJTF-7 Solicits "WISh List" ofInterrogation Techniques (U)

(U) On August 14, 2003, CPT William Ponce, the Battle Captain in the CJTF-7
HUMINT and Counterintelligence office (CJ2X), sent out an email to subordinate intelligence
elements (including the 205th MI BDE and the 519 th MI BN) requesting that they submit their
"interrogation techniques wish list[s]. ,,1294 CPT Ponce wrote:

Immediately seek input from interrogation elements (Division / Corps)
concerning what their special interrogation knowledge base is and more

1287 Army lG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8, 2006) at 10. The Interrogation OIC had received the policy
from one of her Chief Warrant Officers who had, in turn, received the policy from the LTC Robert Whelan,
Commander of the 519tb Ml BN.

1288 Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8, 2006) at 4; Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn
Wood (February 11, 2008). CPT Wood explained that even though the memorandum was dated July 26,2003,
which was before she took over the position at Abu Ghraib, she thought that one of her Chief Warrant Officers
might have sent it up the chain knowing that she would be on board shortly.
1289 Memo from CPT Carolyn Wood to C2X, cm -7 (IRAQ) ABU GHURA. YB, Saddam Fedayeen Interrogation
Facility (SFIF) Detainee Interrogation Policy (July 26, 2003) (hereinafter "SFIF Interrogation Policy (July 26,
2003)"); see also BfflF Policy (July 15, 2003) at 3.

12llO SFIF Interrogation

Policy (July 26, 2003) at 2.

1291

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4.

1292

Army lG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (August 15, 2006).

1293

Army!G, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8,2006) at 10.

1294

Email from CPT (P) William Ponce Jr. to CS 165M!, HECC (August 14, 2003).

167

importantly, what techniques would they feel would be effective techniques that
SJA could review (basically provide a list). 1295
CPT Ponce added:
...The gloves are coming off gentleman regarding these detainees. Col. Boltz has
made it clear that we want these individuals broken. Casuahies are mounting and
we need to start gathering info to help protect our fellow soldiers from any further
attacks. 1296
(U) The Commander ofthe 205 th MI BDE, COL Pappas, said he thought that CPT
Ponce's email soliciting "interrogation techniques wish lists" was the result ofthe
meeting he attended with LTG Sanchez shortly after arriving in theater. 1297 He called the
Battle Captain's use ofthe ~hrase ''the gloves are coming off' a "dumb" thing to say and
a "poor choice of words.,,1 8 LTG Sanchez told the Committee that he expected his
intelligence staff to send out the request for interrogation techniques, but stated that the
use ofthe phrase ''the gloves are coming off' was "not good.,,1299 LTG Sanchez believed
that the email reflected frustration on the part of intelligence personnel at not being able
to meet his intelligence requirements.
(U) Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Lewis Welshofer, who was with the 3rd Annored
Cavalry Regiment responded to CPT Ponce's email with his own assessment ofthe interrogation
situation:

Today's enemy, particularly those in [Southwest Asia], understand force, not
psychological mind games or incentives. I would propose a baseline interrogation
technique that at a minimum allows for physical contact resembling that used by
SERE schools (This allows open handed facial slaps from a distance of no more
than about two feet and back handed blows to the midsection from a distance of
about 18 inches. Again, this is open handed.) ...Other techniques would include
close confinement quarters, sleep deprivation, white noise, and a litany of harsher
fear-up approaches. . . fear of dogs and snakes appear to work nicely. I fIrmly
agree that the gloves need to come o:ff. I3OO
(U) Maj. Nathan Hoepner, the Operations Officer (S-3) ofthe 501 st MI Battalion took
issue with the language in CPT Ponce email, stating in an email of his own:

1295

Ibid.

1296

Ibid.

1297

Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007).

1298

Ibid.; Sworn Statement of COL Thomas Pappas (January 25,2006) at 15.

1299

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20,2007).

Email from CPT (P) William Ponce Jr. to CSI65MI, HECC (August 14, 2003). CWO Lewis Welshoferwas
later tried and convicted of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the November
26, 2003 killing of an Iraq detainee.
1300

168

As for "the gloves need to come off... " we need to take a deep breath and
remember who we are. Those gloves are most defmitely NOT based on Cold War
or WWII enemies-they are based on clearly established standards of
international law to which we are signatories and in part the originators. Those in
tum derive from practices commonly accepted as morally correct, the so-called
"usages of war." It comes down to standards of right and wrong -something we
cannot just put aside when we find it inconvenient, any more than we can declare
that we will "take no prisoners" and therefore shoot those who surrender to us
simply because we find prisoners inconvenient.

"The casualties are mounting... " we have taken casualties in every war we have
ever fought-that is part of the very nature of war. We also inflict casualties,
generally more than we take. That in no way justifies letting go of our
standards. We have NEVER considered our enemies justified in doing such
things to us. Casualties are part of war-if you cannot take casualties then you
cannot engage in war. Period. BOTTOM LINE: We are American soldiers, heirs
ofa long tradition of staying on the high ground. We need to stay there. 1301

Interrogation Ole at Abu Ghraib Resubmits the Proposed Interrogation
Policy for 51 VI' MI BN (U)

(U) On August 27, 2003, CPT Wood re-submitted the proposed interrogation policy that
she had previously sent in July. She said she thought the issue came up because CJTF-7
headquarters "want[ed] these guys broken" and said her August submission may have been a
response to CPT P once , s emal'1 . 1302

_
Though largely the same as the proposed policy submitted on July 26, 2003, the
August 27, 2003 proposed policy included one additional interrogation technique - "sensory
deprivation," which the ro osed olic described as a "combination use of isolation and sleep
,,1303 The proposed interrogation
management
policy also inserted the term "stress positions" in place of "vary comfort positions" and limited
use of sleep deprivation to 72 hours. 304
(U) CPT Wood said that two days after she submitted the proposed policy, two lawyers
from CJTF-7 visited Abu Ghraib with a copy of her memo. 130S According to CPT Wood, the

1301

Email from 4ID 104 MI ICE to various recipients (August 14, 2003) (emphasis in original).

1302

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 2.

1303 Memo from CPT Carolyn Wood to C2X, CJTF-7 (IRAQ), ABU GHURAYB, Saddam Fedayeen Interrogation
Facility (SFIF) Detainee Interrogation Policy (August 27, 2003) at 4.
1304

Ibid

Army!G, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8, 2006) at 4; Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn
Wood (February II, 2007).

1305

169

two attorneys said that "they did not see anything wrong with it and that they would add their
approval and forward it higher to CITF-7 for consideration and review.,,1306
(U) Techniques in CPT Wood's proposed policy can be traced back though the SMU TF
in Iraq to Mghanistan and, ultimately, to techniques authorized for use at GTMO by Secretary
Rumsfeld in December 2002. The GTMO techniques were, in tum, influenced by techniques
used by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency and the military service SERE schools to train
u.s. personnel to resist illegal enemy interrogations. In the summer of2003, as CPT Wood was
seeking approval for her proposed policy, the SMU TF in Iraq was soliciting JPRA's advice on
interrogations.

lPRA Provides "Offensive" SERE Training in Iraq (U)
1.

Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq Seeks Assistancefrom lPRA
(U)

_
In the summer of 2003 the Commander of the Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task
Force (TF) in Iraq,
called the Commander of JPRA, Col Randy Moulton,
to request assistance with Task Force interrogations. 1307
_
On Aumst 25, 2003, the SMU Task Force in Iraq formally requested a JPRA
"interrogation team." 08 The request asked that JPRA send two or more individuals to the TF
for three weeks to "provide assistance to current interro ation efforts ofke
. value
1M~1309 On August 27, 2003,
_request for support, forwarded it to JFCOM, and asked that JFCOM task JPRA to
support the request. l3lO That same day, the JFCOM Operations Directorate (J-3) authorized
JPRA to provide the requested support to the SMU TF.
_
Christopher Wirts, the Chief of JPRA's Operations Support Office (OSO)
subsequently selected three JPRA personnel for the mission. As Team Chie~ Mr. Wirts chose U
Col Steven Kleinman, a reserve officer who happened to be a trained interrogator. Mr. Wirts
also chose Terrence Russell, JPRA's manager for research and development who was also a
SERE specialist. Though Mr. Russell had no formal i~ining or experience, he had
previously conducted interrogation-related training f o r _ ITF-GTMO personnel. To
1306

Ibid.

1307 Memo from Lt Col Arlene McCue for the Force Judge Advocate, Results ofTelephordc Interview With Colonel
Randy Moulton, (USA Ret), former Commantiing Officer, JPRA (Septem~fter "McCue,
Results!!I!nterview with Colonel Moulton'''); Committee staff interview of__._(October 10,
2007). •The Chief of the Operational Support Office (OSO) at JPRA told the Committee that in the process of
ovi' defensive SERE trajping to Special Mission Units, JPRA personnel who had conducted offensive training
also consulted with the Special Mission Units to determine how they could be
helpful in training. Committee staff interview of Chris Wirts (January 4, 2007).
1308
Priority Message, Request JPRA Assistance in Interrogation Support, Date
Time Group (DTG) 252059Z AUG 03 (August 25, 2003).

_to
1309

Ibid

~ t oHQ JPRA, Interrogator Support, DTG 272054Z AUG 03 (August 27, 2003); HQ
CDR USJFCOM, Requestfor Interrogator Support, DTG 271004Z AUG 03 (August 27,2(03).

170

complete the team, Mr. Wirts chose Lenny Miller, a contract SERE instructor who also lacked
interrogation experience but who the SMU TF had specifically requested. The team's
deployment date was set for September 1,2003. 1311
(U) Lt Col Kleinman said that, before being deployed, he thought he was being sent to
Iraq to identify problems in the TF interrogation program. 1312 More than a year earlier, Lt Col
Kleinman had drafted a paper identifying challenges faced by interrogators at GTMO. 1313 In the
draft paper, Lt Col Kleinman identified "fundamental systemic problems" at GTMO that
undermined operational effectiveness. 1314

._
Chiefamong the problems identified in the draft paper was the lack oftrained
personnel with experience in strategic interrogations. 131S Lt Col Kleinman recommended a
number of options in his draftRaper to enhance DoD's ability to conduct strategic interrogation,
including additional training. 1 16 He recommended having experienced "survival, intelligence,
and human factors specialists" conduct an "in-depth assessment" of operations at GTMO and
provide a "comprehensive reR0rt that would set forth concrete steps to improve operational
effectiveness and security.,,1 17 Lt Col Kleinman's paper did not recommend teaching
interrogators at GTMO how to use SERE techniques in interrogations and he said that he did not
believe that was the purpose ofthe Iraq trip. 1318

Awareness ofthe JPRA Trip to Iraq at Headquarters, Joint Forces
Command (JFCOM) (U)

_
JPRA received written approval from JFCOM to support the SMU TF request. 1319
JPRA Commander Col Randy Moulton told the Committee that he was pretty sure he also
conducted a briefmg for the JFCOM Director for Operations (J-3) about JPRA's support to
interrogation efforts at the SMU TF, although he could not recall when that briefing occurred. 1320
The JFCOM J-3, BG Thomas Moore, who was involved in coordinating at least one of JPRA's

1311 Details of the three-week JPRA trip to Iraq are reflected in trip reports that Lt Col Kleinman and Mr. Russell
submitted '\1pon their return from Iraq in late September 2003." Lt Col Kleinman's trip report is annotated with the
comments of Mr. Russell. See DoD IG Memorandum for the Record, 4 January 2005 Meeting with Mr. Lt Col
Steve Kleinman ~005) at 4~ Memorandum from Mr. Terry Russell for Lt. Col. Reichert, Mr. Wirts,
JPRA Support to,--(undated) (hereinafter "Russell Trip Report"); Memorandum from Lt Col Steven
Kleinman, Trip Report - TDY to CENfCOMAOR. 1-24 Sep 03 (undated) (hereinafter "Kleinman Trip Report")'
1312

Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (New York: Doubleday) at 246.

1313

Maj Steven Kleinman, Support to DoD Interrogation Operations (May 17, 2002).

1314

Ibid

1m Ibid
1316

at 1-2.

Ibid at 4-6.

1317 Ibid

at 5.

1318

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008).

1319

(SIFP) CDR USJFCOM to HQ JPRA, Interrogator Support, DIG 272054Z AUG 03 (August 27, 2003).

1320

Committee staff interview of Col Randy Moulton (November 26, 2007).

previous "offensive" training sessions completed his assignment as the J·3 at JFCOM in early to
mid-August and was replaced by RADM John Bird. 1321
(U) On September 4, 2003, just as the JPRA team was arriving in Iraq, Col Moulton
emailed a JPRA "Weekly Report" to the JFCOM Command Group and others stating:

We deployed a Personnel Recovery Support Team to Baghdad in support of
CENTCOM and [redacted] interrogation requirements. This is an issue that may
merit Lessons Learned visibility, as there is currently no focal point within DoD
for strategic debriefmg / interrogation [tactics, techniques, and procedures]
development (offensive).
Currently, subject matter expertise on captivity
environments, psychology, and maintenance resides almost solely within JPRA
(defensive).1322
(U) In response, the JFCOM Deputy Commander LTG Robert Wagner, questioned
whether JPRA was operating within its charter. He wrote: "I'm not sure I see the connection
between your assigned responsibilities and this task ... [W]hat charter places JPRA in the
business of intelligence collection?,,1323 Col Moulton responded "There is nothing in our charter
or elsewhere that points us towards the offensive side of captivity conduct nor are we requesting
to take this on as a new responsibility.,,1324 He added, however, that JPRA had a role to play in
helping to educate and assist offensive operations, stating;

[Those conducting interrogations] have already demonstrated the need for our
understanding and knowledge of captivity environment and psychology. We are
also well aware of the problems associated with crossing the Rubicon into intel
collection (or anything close). There may be a compromise position (my gut
choice) whereby we could provide/assist in oversight, training, analysis, research,
and [tactics, techniques, and procedures] development, while leavin~ the actual
debriefmglinterrogation to those already assigned the responsibility. 132
(U) In a subsequent email to RADM Bird, Col Moulton stated that while he was
concerned about "mission creep" and departing too far from JPRA's traditional role, it was his
view that "no DoD entity has a firm grasp on any comprehensive approach to strategic
debriefmglinterrogation.,,1326 Col Moulton wrote:

1321

Committee staff interview of RADM John Bird (March 17, 2008)

Email from JPRA J2 to weekly report distribution list., JPRA Weekly Report (September 4, 2003). The JPRA
Commander also updated JFCOM in JPRA's subsequent weekly reports. See September II, 2003 Weekly Report
(the JPRA team "deployed to Baghdad continues to support [redacted] with strategic debriefmg.") September 25,
2003 Weekly Report (the JPRA team "deployed to Baghdad to support [redacted] with strategic debriefmg" returned
on September 24,2003.)
1322

1323

Email from LTG Wagner to Col Moulton (September 6, 2003).

1324

Email from Col Moulton to LTG Wagner (September 8, 2003).

132' Ibid.
1326

Email from Col Moulton to RADM Bird (September 9, 2003).

172

Our subject matter experts (and certain Service SERE psychologist[sD currently
have the most knowledge and depth within DoD on the captivity environment and
exploitation. I think that JPRAlJFCOM needs to keep involved for reasons of
TTP development and information sharing. Weare NOT looking to expand our
involvement to active participation. The current support was intended to be
limited to advice, assistance, and observation. Our potential participation is
predicated solely on the request ofthe Combatant Commander. 1327

(U) Col Moulton testified to the Committee that before he sent the JPRA team to Iraq he
talked to the SMU Task Force commander and was told that SMU TF detainees "were detained
unlawful combatants and not covered under the Geneva Conventions." 1328 Col Moulton later
said, referring to a subsequent call with the SMU TF Commander, that he did not know ifthe
SMU TF Commander had "specifically" told him that. 1329

JPRA Provides Interrogation Support to the Special Mission Unit Task
Force in Iraq (U)1330

_
On September 5, 2003, after their arrival in Iraq, the three-member JPRA team
met with SMU TF personnel at the TF facility. 1331 According to U Col Kleinman, the JPRA
Team Chief, the team was told that interrogators were having trouble gaining actionable
intelligence information from detainees in TF custody.1332 Lt Col Kleinman felt that the SMU
TF's lack of success was a resuh ofa poor screening process, which resulted in the TF holding
some detainees with no information. 1333

~errence Russell the team also met that day with the SMU TF
C o m m _ and discussed
expectations for the JPRA
1334
team.
Mr. Russell said that
"expected [the JPRA team] to become fully
engaged in interrogation operations" and "encouraged [the team] to receive modified" rules of
engagement (ROEs) from JPRA, since their ROEs at that time permitted the team to "advise and
assist" but not to "engage in direct interrogations.,,133S

1327

Ibid (emphasis in original).

1328

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1329

Ibid

1330 To the extent possible, the Committee relied on contemporaneous documents, including Lt Col Kleinman's and
Mr. Russell's written trip reports, to establish the timeline of events during the JPRA team's visit to the SMUTaslc
Force.
1331

Russell Trip Report.

1332

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Steven Kleinman (F ebruary 14, 2007).

1333 Ibid During his interview with Committee staff, Lt Col Kleinman described the interrogation of an Iraqi man
who had been detained by U.S. forces because interrogators believed he had useful intelligence because he knew
about "bridges." Lt Col Kleinman said that it later became clear that the man was a dental technician.

1334 Russell

1m Ibid

Trip Report at 2.

at 1.

173

_
Over the next week, Lt Col Kleinman spoke by phone with Col Moulton at least
twice. While accounts by the three JPRA team members of those calls differed in some respects,
all agree that the calls resulted in Col Moulton (1) authorizing the team to participate in SMU
Task Force interrogations and (2) authorizing the team to use the full range of SERE school
physical pressures in those interrogations. Col Moulton confIrmed that the team's understanding
1336
of his guidance was correct.

JPRA Team Authorized to Participate in Interrogations (U)

_
According to Mr. Russell, Lt Col Kleinman called Col Moulton on September 5,
2003 to discuss the team's ROEs and, the following day, Col Moulton gave the team permission
to "become fully engaged in all BIF operations. ,,1337 That account is consistent with Col
Moulton's recollection, which was that Lt Col Kleinman called him after arriving in Iraq to
discuss a request from the SMU TF that team members actually participate in interrogations. 1338
_ _ _ _ _ Col Moulton said that, after getting the call from Lt Col Kleinman, he called.
~ o confIrm and inquire about the new request.,,1339 In s ~ sand
communications, Col Moulton has consistently stated that he relayedlllllllllllllllrequest
to JFCOM and got JFCOM's authorization to permit the JPRA team to participate in
interrogations. Col Moulton's recollection of who at JFCOM provided that authority, however,
has varied.
(U) According to a memorandum of a September 2005 interview with the JPRA
Commander, Col Moulton "relayed the request to the [JFCOM] J3 and got the verbal OK to
allow active participation, but only for one or two demonstrations and then the team was to go
back to its role as observers.,,1340
(U) In a 2006 email to the DoD IG, however, Col Moulton could not recall exactly whom
at JFCOM he had spoken with, stating:

During the deployment I received a call from the Task Force commander
requesting that our personnel participate in the debriefIng. I notifIed JFCOM
leadership of the request (either BG Moore or LTG Wagner I can't remember, but
think it was [LTG] Wagner since this was late on a weekend night) and was told
that they could support, but that any activities had to be approved through the task
forces legal rep (we were chopped to them). 1341

1336

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1337

Russell trip report at 2.

Committee staff interview of Randy Moulton (June 19, 2007)~ Committee staff interview of Randy Moulton
(November 26, 2007)
1338

1339

McCue, Results afInterview with Colonel Moulton at 1.

McCue, Results afInterview with Colonel Moulton at 1. According to the DoD IG report, the JPRA Commander
confl1lI1ed that the U.S. Joint Forces Command J-3 and the SMU TF Commander "gave a verbal approval for the
SERE team to actively participate in 'one or two demonstration' interrogations." DoD IG Report at 28.

1340

1341

Email from Randy Moulton to DoD IG (June 30, 2006) at 3.

174

_
In interviews with Committee staff in 2007, Col Moulton said that he had tried
but had been unable to reach BGen Moore, so instead he called LTG Wagner whom he reached
at home. 1342 According to that account, LTG Wagner told Col Moulton that he needed aEproval
from his boss, JFCOM Commander ADM Giambastiani, to approve the JPRA re~est. 13 3
According to Col Moulton, LTG Wagner called him back and gave his approval. 1 44
_
BGen Moore, whom Col Moulton referenced in his September 2005 interview,
was no longer assigned to JFCOM in September 2003. 1345 RADM Bird, who replaced BGen
Moore, stated that he did not recall receiving a call from the JPRA Commander. RADM Bird
said that he thought it unlikely he would have received the call on the weekend as it would have
had to have occurred over a secure line and he did not have that capability at home. LTG
Wagner told the Committee that he could not recall if he received a call from Col Moulton. 1346
_
According to Terrence Russell, one ofthe JPRA team in Iraq, the JPRA team
received permission from Col Moulton "to become fully engaged in all BIF operations.,,1347 The
next day, team members met with the SMU TF staff and "outlined the exploitation cycle and
how [the staff] could incorporate [SERE Training, Tactics, and Procedures] to support their
current interrogation operations.,,1348
• While it is not known when it occurred, the Chief ofHuman Intelligence and
Counterintelligence (J-2X) for the SMU stated that members ofthe JPRA team demonstrated
interrogation techniques, including the "attention slap," which he said was described as an openhanded slap to focus the detainee on the interrogation, and walling, which was described as a
push up against the wall. 1349 The J-2X could not recall if all members ofthe JPRA team were
present during that lesson. 1350 Lt Col Kleinman said that he was not aware of such a lesson. 1351

1342 Committee staff interview of Col Randy Moulton (JlD'le 19, 2007); Committee staff interview of Col Randy
Moulton (November 26, 2007). LTG Wagner, however, to which the JPRA Commander referred had already left
JFCOM in August 2003, well before the JPRA team deployed to Iraq. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Col Moulton said that he was unable to reach RADM Bird or Maj Gen Soligan so he "went up the chain
and spoke with General Wagner." SASC hearing (September 25, 2008).
1343

Committee staff interview of Col Randy Moulton (JlD'le 19, 2007).

1344

Ibid

134'

Committee staff interview ofRADM John Bird (March 17, 2008).

1346

Committee staff interview of Robert Wagner (June 28, 2007).

1347

Russell Trip Report.

1348

Russell Trip Report.

1349 With the walling technique, the J-2X stated that instructions were given to use a wood wall and to pick a spot on
the wall in between any metal braces. Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5, 2008).
13'0

Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5, 2008).

13'1

Committee staff interview of Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008).

175

II The J-2X stated that he was unsure if techniques taught to the staff were pennitted
under SMU TF policy and that, after the JPRA demonstration, he raised this matter with the
1352
SMU TF J2, which at the time was

JPRA Present as Interrogator Uses Stress Positions and Slaps (U)

_
On September 6, 2003, JPRA team members were present in the interrofiation
booth when a SMU TF interrogator used "selected physical pressures" on a detainee. 13
According to Terrence Russell, the SMU TF interrogator "put the detainee on his knees and later
began to use insult slaps every 3-4 seconds for an extended period oftime.,,1354
(U) Lt Col (now Colonel) Kleinman described that same interrogation in testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lt Col Kleinman said:
I walked into the interrogation room, all painted in black with [a] spotlight on the
detainee. Behind the detainee was a military guard... with a[n] iron bar...
slapping it in his hand. The interrogator was sitting in a chair. The interpreter
was - was to his left... and the detainee was on his knees ... A question was asked
by the interrogator, interpreted, the response came back and, upon interpretation,
the detainee would be slapped across the face... And that continued with every
question and every response. I asked my colleagues how long this had been going
on, specifically the slapping, they said approximately 30 minutes. 1355
(U) Lt Col Kleinman said that his two JPRA colleagues, who were present during
the interrogation, "didn't seem to think there [was] a problem, because in SERE
training... there's a facial slap, but it's conducted in very specific ways ... This was not
conducted in that fashion.,,1356 In fact, Lt Col Kleinman described the environment at the
Task Force facility as ''uncontrolled.,,1357
_
Members ofthe JPRA team had differing views on the appropriate response to the
interrogator's use ofthose techniques. Mr. Russell stated that he and Mr. Miller "saw nothing
wrong with" the interrogator forcing the detainee to kneel or his slapping the detainee during the
interrogation. 1358 Lt Col Kleinman had a different reaction.
_
Lt Col Kleinman considered forcing the detainee to kneel and repeatedly slapping
him to be "direct violations ofthe Geneva Conventions and [actions that] could constitute a war
crime." 1359 Upon witnessing the abusive conduct, Lt Col Kleinman sought out the SMU TF Jmz Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5, 2008).
13~3

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 102-103, 106.

13~4

Russell Trip Report.

13~~

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

13~6

Ibid

1357 Ibid.

ms Russell Trip Report.
13~9

Ibid at 5; Kleinman Trip Report at 2-3.

176

2X 1360 Lt Col Kleinman told the J-2X what he had witnessed and recommended ''that the
session be halted immediately.,,1361 Lt Col Kleinman said the J-2X told him "[y]our judgment is
my judgment. Do what you think. is right.,,1362
_
Following his conversation with the J-2X, Lt Col Kleinman asked the two
members of his team to step out ofthe interrogation booth. According to Mr. Russell:
In the hallway [Lt Col] Kleinman asked us our impression of the use of the
kneeling and slaps. We both indicated that we saw nothing wrong with what was
going on. He asked us our opinion of the slapping and we said they were only
insult slaps and were not inflicting any pain to the detainee. [Lt Col] Kleinman
indicated his disagreement and that both the slaps and kneeling were direct
violations of the Geneva Conventions and could constitute a war crime. He
further indicated that he wanted to intervene and stop the interrogation at that
point. 1363

_
Over the objections of the other two members of JPRA team, Lt Col Kleinman
then asked the SMU TF interrogator to step out ofthe booth. He explained to the interrogator
"how and why [the interrogator's] methods were a violation ofthe Geneva Convention and TF
[policy].,,1364 According to Lt Col Kleinman, "[the interrogator] accepted my direction without
reservation.,,1365
.
•

With respect to Lt Col Kleinman's actions, Mr. Russell stated:

I think the clear violation of the TF policy was of a minor nature - that being a
10-minute extension of the kneeling policy. The use of insult slaps was, in the
opinion of [Lt Col] Kleinman, serious enough to stop the interrogation - an action
I did not then or now feel warranted his direct intervention. 1366

II In subsequent testimony to the Committee, Mr. Russell claimed that the use ofthe
"insult slap" was consistent with the facility's operating instructions:
Under their operating instructions at that BIF, at that time and place, we did not
see anything wrong with [the use of physical pressures]. It may not have been

13CiO

Kleinman Trip Report at 2-3.

1361

Ibid.

1362

Ibid.

1363 Russell Trip Report at 5. Mr. Russell also felt that Lt Col Kleinman should have used the interrogator's chain of
command at the Task Force to stop the interrogation. Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 105.
1364

Kleinman Trip Report at 3.

136'

Ibid

13~ Kleinman Trip Report at 3. In his own trip report, Mr. Russell also noted that the use of kneeling was an
authorized SMU IF technique. See Russell Trip Report at 3-4.

177

applied the way we would have done it, but we didn't see anythin wrong with it.
We advised [Lt Col] Kleinman ofthe same. He disagreed with us. 367
_
SMU TF SOPs reviewed by the Committee do not include slapping as an
authorized technique and the SMU TF J-2X told the Committee that he was unaware of any
operating instructions that would have permitted an interrogator to repeatedly slap a detainee. 1368

11II Despite Mr. Russell's previous statement that he "saw nothing wrong with what was
going on," he testified to the Committee that he found the SMU TF interrogator's repeated use of
the insult slap to be "odd" and "in excess" of what would be used in resistance training at
JPRA 1369 Mr. Russell also testified that the technique, as applied by the TF interrogator, was
ineffective:
[The] insult slap is just that, it's an insult. After you do it two or three times it
loses its effectiveness because the [sic], in our world, the student is anticipating
the slap. It loses its effectiveness if you do it more than two or three or four
times. 1370
While he did not raise any objection to their use in the interrogation, Mr.
Russell stated that the techniques used at the SERE school, such as the insult slap, were not
designed to elicit information from individuals but rather to "guide the student" to an appropriate
resistance posture. 1371 According to his testimony, "history has shown us that physical pressures
are not effective for compelling an individual to give information or to do something" and are
not useful in gaining accurate, actionable intelligence. 1372 There is no indication in Mr.
Russell's trip report, however, that he told anyone on the J-2X staffthat the SMU TF's use of
repeated slaps would be ineffective or that use of other SERE physical pressures, such as
''walling'', which were reportedly described for the J-2X staff, would be ineffective.

III

Mr. Russell stated that when physical pressures are applied in the resistance phase of
SERE training, medical and psychological personnel are present to observe interrogations and
protect SERE school students,1373 Mr. Russell testified that there were no medical or
psychological personnel present during the interrogations he witnessed while at the SMU TF
Co
'l'ty . 1374
laCll

1367

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2001) at 104-105.

1368

Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5,2008).

1369

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2001) at 103.

1370

Ibid at 104.

1371

Ibid at 111-12.

1372

Ibid at 126-27.

1373

Ibid. at 123.

1374

Ibid.

178

JPRA Team Authorized to Use SERE Techniques (U)

(U) At some point shortly after he intervened to stop the interrogation where the detainee
was placed on his knees and slappe~ Lt Col Kleinman called Col Moulton. 137S Lt Col Kleinman
testified before the Committee that he told Col Moulton that the JPRA team was "being asked to
use the full range of SERE methods in the interrogation of detainees.,,1376 Lt Col Kleinman
testified that he also told Col Mouhon that he had intervened to stop interrogations at the Task
Force and that the use of SERE techniques "were violations ofthe Geneva Convention, they
weren't authorize~ and we should not do them.,,1377
(U) Lt Col Kleinman said that he also told the SMU TF Commander that the use of SERE
techniques in interrogations was ''unlawful'' and "a violation ofthe Geneva Convention.,,1378 He
said that the SMU TF Commander agreed with him but there were "no orders ever issued" by the
Commander not to use the techniques. 1379

_ _ According to Lt Col Kleinman's trip report, after~l
Moulton, Col Moulton subsequently spoke to the SMU TF Commander,
and
then called him back to tell him that the JPRA team was "cleared hot" to use ''the full range of
JPRA methods" on detainees, specifically including "walling, sleep deprivation, isolation,
physical pressures (to include various stress positions, facial and stomach slaps, and finger pokes
to the chest), space/time disorientation, [and] white noise.,,1380
(U) Lt Col Kleinman also testified to the Committee that Col Moulton told him that the
JPRA team was "cleared hot to use SERE methods" in interrogations. 1381 Lt Col Kleinman
testified that he told Col Moulton that he considered this instruction to be an illegal order and
that he would not carry it out. Col Moulton said that Lt Col Kleinman "was adamant about that
he thought it was against the Geneva Convention.,,1382

JPRA Team ChiefSeeks Legal Guidance (U)

_Following his conversation with the JPRA Commander, Lt Col Kleinman
consulted with the SMU TF lawyer who advised him that the SERE tactics "fell outside the
parameters of acceptability under the [Geneva Conventions] and [Task Force] policy.,,1383 Lt
Col Kleinman then met with the other two members of the JPRA team to inform them ofthe
1375

The record is unclear as to exactly what date the call occurred.

1376

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1377 Ibid.
13'711 Ibid.
1379 Ibid

13~ Kleinman Trip Report at 3; Russell Trip Report at 2 ("The JPRA Commander had cleared Lenny Miller and
me to use our normal and usual range of physical pressures while interrogating detainees''); Committee staff
interview of Steven Kleinman (February 14, 2007); Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 99.
1381

SASC Hearing (September 25,2008).

1382

Ibid.

1383

Kleinman Trip Report at 4; Russell Trip Report at 6.

179

JPRA Commander's order that they could use "the normal and usual range of physical rsressures"
during interrogations and to alert them of his concerns about the legality of that order. 1 84 Mr.
Russell wrote in his trip report:
[Lt Col] Kleinman indicated that he felt [it was] ' ... an illegal order' and we were
exposing ourselves to possible future difficulties if we used any pressure
inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. 1385

(U) Lt Col Kleinman also testified to the Committee that he relayed his conversation with
Col Moulton to his two lPRA colleagues, informing them that he told Col Moulton that the
authority to use SERE techniques "was an unlawful order" and that he "wasn't going to have any
involvement with it, and [he] didn't think that they should either.,,1386
_
Both Mr. Russell and Mr. Miller, the JPRA contractor, disagreed with Lt Col
Kleinman's assessment. 1387 According to Mr. Russell, the two "indicated that the use of these
moderate physical pressures, when used appropriately, were consistent with proper handling and
interrogation.,,1388 In testimony to the Committee, Mr. Russell added that he understood that the
individuals held by the Task Force were considered "detained unlawful combatants" and "not
automatically provided the protections ofthe Geneva Conventions," though he could not recall
who told him this. 1389
Shortly after Col Moulton told Lt Col Kleinman that the team was
"cleared hot" to employ the full range of JPRA methods, Lt Col Kleinman recommended that the
TF Legal Advisor arrange a formal briefing with the SMU TF interrogation staff and the lPRA
team 1390 In that meeting, Lt Col Kleinman reported that the TF Legal Advisor "set forth legal
limitations that essentially excluded most ofthe [lPRA methods] (with the use of certain stress
positions, such as kneeling on a hard floor for up to 30 minutes, cited as an acceptable
method).,,1391
(U) Lt Col Kleinman testified to the Committee that although the SMU TF lawyer agreed
with him that it was unlawful to use SERE techniques in interrogations, when the lawyer later
briefed interrogators on the techniques, there was no longer "any clarity" about whether or not
they were illegal. 1392
_ M r . Russell also described the TF Legal Advisor's briefing in his trip report:
Russell Trip Report at 2.
1385 Ibid
1384

1386

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008)

1387

Russell Trip report at 6..

1388

Ibid.

1389

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 106-07.

1390

Russell Trip Report at 3; Kleinman Trip Report at 4.

1391

Kleinman Trip Report at 4.

1392

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

180

The [TF Legal Advisor] discussed the [TF Commander's] expectations versus the
methods of exploitation and physical pressures he had heard were being used in
the BIF - including those prior to his recent arrival (2-3 weeks on site). He also
discussed the status of the detainees and the fact that the BIF's detainees were not
identified to the ICRC. He discussed the assumption of risk being taken by the
[SMU] command if BIF personnel engaged in 'beat down' tactics or while
,
..
,1393
engagmg 10 torture.
_
The TF Legal Advisor told the Committee that the SMU TF did not make status
determinations for detainees, but that he advised in his briefing that the protections of Common
Article 3 ofthe Geneva Conventions applied to those detainees under the control ofthe SMU
TFY94

JPRA Training Manager and Contractor Participate in an Interrogation
(U)

(U) Lt Col Kleinman testified to the Committee that after he told his two JPRA
colleagues that Col Moulton had "cleared hot" their use of SERE techniques in interrogations,
his colleagues decided to "demonstrate the way you handle an interrogation.,,139S

_ _ Around the time that Lt Col Kleinman met with the SMU TF Legal
Advisor, Mr. Russell and Mr. Miller met separately with the SMU TF Director ofIntelli1ence (J2), COL Brian Keller, and his J-2X and participated in interrogations with J-2X staff. 139 In one
instance, Mr. Russell and Mr. Miller took the lead in the interrogation of a detainee. 1397 The
interrogation began with the simulated release of the detainee - the detainee was permitted to
clean up, leave the facility, and was escorted to a bus stop, when he was "captured" again. 1398
When the detainee was brought back to the SMU TF facility, Mr. Russell and Mr. Miller took
physical control ofthe detainee and led him into a holdin cell. 1399 Once in the holding cell, one
or both ofthe men forcibl stri ed the detainee naked. 14 0

,,1401 He told the Committee: "we [had] done this 100 times, 1000 times with
our [SERE school] studentS.,,1402
1393

Russell Trip Report at 3.

1394

Committee staff interview of SMU IF Legal Advisor 2 (March 12, 2008).

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1396

Russell Trip Report at 2-3.

1397

Kleinman Trip Report at 3.

1398

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 114-15.

1399

Ibid at 115.

1400 SASC Hearing (September 25,2008). Mr. Russell testified that both he and Mr. Miller removed the detainee's
clothing, but Mr. Miller told the Committee that only Mr. Russell removed the detainee's clothing. Testimony of
Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 116; Committee staff interview of Lenny Miller (July 24, 2007).

1401

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 117.

1402

Ibid

181

(U) Lt Col Kleinman also described that interrogation intestimony to the Senate Armed
Services Committee. He said the detainee was driven away from the Task Force's interrogation
facility to make him think he was being released and then brought back to a "bunker that was
about a story ... into the ground - cement, cold, dark.,,1403 He said:
[The detainee] was literally carried by two of the guards into the bunker
struggling against them. He was taken down there. My two JPRA colleagues
took over from that point... [T]hey ripped his Abaya off - not cut - they ripped it
off... ripped off his underwear, took his shoes, they'd hooded him already, then
they - they had shackled him by the wrist and ankles - being screamed at the
entire time in his ear in English about essentially... what a poor specimen of
human that he was ... And then the orders were given that he was to stand in that
position for 12 hours no matter how much he asked for help, no matter how much
he pleaded, unless he passed out, the guards were not to respond to any requests
for help. 1404
(U) Lt Col Kleinman said that he told his colleagues that what they did was
''unlawful'' and he stopped the interrogation. l40s

• Mr. Russell testified to the Committee that the detainee was naked only for "however
long it took to have his clothes taken offand put the new dish-dash on again.,,1406
_
In his trip report, Lt Col Kleinman reported that he told the two other JPRA team
1407
members that he disagreed with their approach.
Mr. Russell stated that the exploitation
scenario was conducted after coordination with the J-2X staff and that the techniques, including
isolation and sleep deprivation, were "employed in accordance with existing TF guidance and
pOlicy.,,1408 While Col Kleinman testified that he intervened to stop the interrogation, Mr.
Russell said that Lt Col Kleinman never raised an objection to the interrogation. 1409

JPRA Team Chie/Objects to SMU TF Interrogation (U)

(U) Lt Col Kleinman testified to the Committee that he intervened to stop another
interrogation being conducted by SMU TF personnel. 1410 Lt Col Kleinman said that "a plan was
laid out on butcher paper for another detainee that involved extensive stress positions, followed
by interrogation, followed by short periods of sleep.,,1411 Lt Col Kleinman photographed the

1403

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1404

Ibid

1405

Ibid

1406

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 116-19.

1407 Kleinman

Trip Report at 3.

1408

Ibid at 3-4.

1409

SASC hearing (September 25,2008); Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 119.

1410

SASC hearing (September 25,2008).

1411

Ibid.

182

plan which had been posted in plain view and described a schedule for keeping the detainee
awake and placing him in stress positions. 1412 The plan listed the following schedule:
*1830 -2130

Awake

*2130-2230

Sleep

*2230-2300

On Knees

*2300-2330

Sitting Down

*2330-0030

Sit Up

*0030-0100

Sit Down

*0100-0130/0200

On Knees

*0200 -0300

Sl eep 1413

(U) Another photograph showed the same detainee in his cell and hooded. His hands
appear handcuffed behind his back. 1414 Lt Col Kleinman said that his photograph did not reflect
the fact that the detainee also had his ankles shackled. 1415

_ _ Mr. Russell's trip report appears to confmn Lt Col Kleinman's account.
It stated that Lt Col Kleinman intervened in an SMU TF "interrogator's plan for imposing a
regime of sleep deprivation and physical pressures.,,1416 According to Mr. Russell, the proposed
interrogation re .men "included an 18-hour Ian to im ose slee de rivation and physical
activities
" as well as "the
use oftwo separate 30-minute kneeling sessions separated by 3 hours of standing or restin~.,,1417
According to Mr. Russell, Lt Col Kleinman reportedly objected to the use of "kneeling.,,14 8 Mr.
Russell said that he and Mr. Miller felt that "the regime proposal was apjropriate and well within
[the SMU TF] current [Rules of Engagement] for detainee handling.,,141

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Steven Kleinman (February 14,2007); Committee staff interview ofLt Col
Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008). Lt Col Kleinman told the Committee that the IF Commander gave him
permission to take photographs.
1412

Untitled Photograph taken by Lt Col Steven Kleinman, (September 2003).
1414 Ibid
1413

141'

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008).

1416 In his trip report, Terrence Russell wrote that he had learned about Lt Col Kleinman's intervention from the 12X. Russell Trip Report at 3.
1417 Ibid
1418

Ibid. at 4.

1419

Ibid.

183

10.

JPRA Develops a Concept ofOperatiom (CONOP) (U)

_
While the team was in Iraq,
requested that JPRA develop a
formal Concept of Operations (CONOP) for detainee exploitation. 142o Col Moulton tasked
members ofthe team with developing the CONOp. 1421 Mr. Russell's trip report stated that he
drafted the CONOP in Iraq and that Mr. Miller and Lt Col Kleinman reviewed it and offered
suggestions. 1422 He later testified to the Committee that he drafted a "skeleton of a CONOP"
with Mr. Miller and that Lt Col Kleinman was aware that they were working on it. 1423 Lt Col
Kleinman said that he knew that his team members were working on a CONOP, but that he did
not see sections of it. 1424
(lJ) Lt Col Kleinman testified that he told Mr. Russell that he would not participate in
drafting the CONOP because he "absolutely disagreed with that type of expansion ofthe use of.
SERE methods," and that his "contribution would be nothing but contrary.,,1425

_
While the JPRA team was still in Iraq, the draft was shared with and edited by
JPRA eersonnel in the U.S., including Christopher Wirts, JPRA's Operations Support Office
Chief. 426 The CONOP, called "Concept of Operations for HVT exploitation," provided JPRA's
"recommendations and guidance to USG forces conducting exploitation operations. 1427
_
The September 2003 CONOP was similar to the April 2002 "Exploitation Draft
Plan" that Dr. Bruce Jessen, JPRA's former senior SERE psycholo~st, had drafted shortly
before JPRA's support t o _ the DoD General Counsel. 14 8 As had the April 2002
exploitation draft plan, the CONOP described a JPRA-directed exploitation process and included
recommendations for exploitation and captivity operations, such as "tailoring detainee
punishment consequences to maximize cultural undesirability.,,1429
_
The September 2003 CONOP also identified "critical operational exploitation
principles," including:

1420 _

JPRA, Executive Summary ofJPRA Support_(undated)

1 4 2 1 _ Ibid;

Russell Trip Report at 4.

1422

Russell Trip Report at 4.

1423

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 120-121.

1424

Committee staff interview of Lt Col Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008).

1425

SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008).

1426

Russell Trip Report at 4.

1427 ConCJJ!1.!d:jJperations For HVF Exploitation (Undated), attachment to JPRA, Executive Summary ofJPRA
Support _
(undated) (hereinafter "eoncept ofOperationsfor HVF Exploitation - Version I"}
1428

_Exploitation Draft Plan (Undated); Concept ofOperations For HVF Exploitation - Version 1

1419 Similar recommendations had also been listed in the February 28, 2003 JPRA memorandwn on "prisoner
handling recommendations" that JPRA had provided to SOUTHCOM in February 2002.

184

[10] Controlling authority sets [Rules of Engagement] prior to
uutlatmg process within the Torture Convention [11.] Established the latitude and
process for the HVT team to offer concessions for validated information or
coo eration of the HVT

_
Those exploitation principles were similar to those that had been included in the
exploitation draft plan nearly a year and a half earlier. In addition, the September 2003 JPRA
CONOP listed specific interrogation techniques and incorporated portions ofthe March 6, 2003
DoD Interrogation Working Group draft report. JPRA ~ersonnel considered the Working Group
report authoritative guidance on U.S. policy and law. 143

Mr. Wirts said
that the DoD Working Group draft reflected material that the Working Group had gleaned from
JPRA on SERE training and that it was, in turn, used to formulate the HVT exploitation
CONOp. 1434 A copy of a CONOP that incorporated interrogation techniques from the Working
Group draft was circulated while the team was still in Iraq, and was sent to CAPT Daniel
Donovan, the JFCOM Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), on September 23, 2003. 1435
1433

1430.

Concept ofOperations For HVI Exploitation - Version 1.

1431 Ibid. (noting that "HVT exploitation operations will be conducted within the intent of US. policy and law, [in
accordance with] US. interpretation as identified" in the March 6,2003 Working Group report.)

1432_

Concept ofOperations For HVI Exploitation - Version 1.

1433

Ibid

1434

Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2008).

143~ • Following their trip, JPRA personnel also completed an "Executive Summary" of their support to the SMU
IF that described the visit and summarized observations and recommendations provided to the SMU IF
Commander. . . Executive Summary of JPRA Support_ (undated).

185

11.

JPRA Team Leaves Iraq (U)

(U) According to the DoD Inspector General's August 2006 report, when it "became
apparent that friction was developing" between the SMU TF and the JPRA team, ''the decision
was made to pull the team out [ofIraq] before more damage was done to the relationship
between the two organizations.,,1436 Lt Col Kleinman referred to the DoD IG report's statement
that "friction was developing" as an understatement and said that he felt his life was being
threatened at the SMU TF. 1437 He recalled one instance (after he stopped what he believed to be
in violation ofthe Geneva Conventions) in which an SMU TF member told him, while
sharpening a knife, to "sleep lightly," noting that they did not "coddl[e] terrorists" at the SMU
TF. 1438
_The SMU TF Legal Advisor told the Committee that JPRA had no business at the
SMU TF facility either assisting in or conducing interrogations and that he sought to have the
the SMU TF
team removed 1439 The Legal Advisor said that he met with
Commander, and told him that SERE training was not meant for detainees and that JPRA's
presence had the potential to lead to abuse. He also recalled telling the Commander that JPRA
was not qualified or trained to perform interrogations. The Legal Advisor said that_
_
did not act on his concerns.

_
Mr. Russell wrote in his trip report that the SMU TF Operations Officer (J-3) also
recommended to
that the JPRA team should leave the facility, noting that the J3 ''was particularly concerned over the [JPRA] CONOP having been sent [to JPRA headquarters]
without his staff's security review.,,1440 On September 22, 2003, the JPRA Commander directed
Lt Col Kleinman and Mr. Miller to return to the U.S., but told Mr. Russell to remain in place for
''the possible arrival of a follow-up team.,,1441 On September 23, 2003, the team's original
1436

DoD IG Report at 28.

1437

Committee staff interview ofLt Col Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008).

1438

Ibid

1439

Committee staff interview of SMU TF Legal Advisor 2 (March 12, 2008).

1440 Russell

Trip Report at 4.

1441 Ibid. _
The initial decision to keep Mr. Russell in theater may be relevant to discussions Col Moulton was
having with CENTCOM about the possibility of sending another three-man team to Iraq. Shortly after the original
team left for Iraq, Col Moulton began discussions about sending a JPRA team to assist CENTCOM. On September
3,2003, Col Moulton contacted the JPRArepresentative at CENTCOM and explained the genesis of their SMU TF
mission and how he thought such support might be expanded to other missions and organizations throughout the
CENTCOM AOR. Col Moulton wrote:

I've been in contact with
in Baghdad. He was the one who requested the
[JPRA team] to assist in interrogation training. He also mentioned that there are several entities
doing interrogations, and there is no standardization/methodology on how to conduct / coordinate
the process. He asked me to bring a team over to observe what they are doing and what others are
doing. I think it would be a good idea to bring a team over to observe what they are doing and
what others are doing. I think it would be a good idea to bring a team forward (3 person - myself,
Chris Wirts, Terry Russell) to visit the various interrogation facilities and report back to lCS
(through CENTCOM and the JFCOMILL folks) with observations and potential
recommendations.

186

scheduled departure date, JPRA infonned the team that all three team members should leave
Iraq. 1442
12.

U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Reviews JPRA Concept Of
Operations (CONOP) (U)

(U) The same day the JPRA team returned home from Iraq, a copy of the JPRA HVT
exploitation CONOP was sent to CAPT Donovan, the JFCOM SJA 1443 CAPT Donovan
commented on the CONOP in a September 26, 2003 email to Col Moulton, JPRA Deputy
Commander John Atkins, OSO Chief Christopher Wirts and others, and circulated a version of
the CONOP with his edits and comments.
(U) In his email, CAPT Donovan stated that JPRA should not rely on the March 6, 2003
Working Group report as "authoritative DoD guidance." He wrote that, although the Secretary
had approved certain counter-resistance techniques during interrogations of unlawful combatants
at GTMO, not all ofthe techniques listed in the Working Group report had been approved for
use. l444 CAPT Donovan also raised serious concerns about the legality ofthe interrogation
techniques in the CONOP emphasizing that, unlike in Mghanistan and at GTMO, the Geneva
Conventions applied in Iraq. He wrote:

Unlike OEF-Mghanistan, in which the Taliban and Al-Qaida enemy 'forces'
were all deemed to be UNLAWFUL combatants NOT legally entitled to the full
protections of the Geneva conventions, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was
executed as a CONVENTIONAL anned conflict in which the vast majority of
enemy forces were LAWFUL combatants. Therefore, almost all captured
personnel within Iraq are legally entitled to either prisoner of war (POW) or
civilian internee (CI) status which means they get the full protections of the
Geneva Conventions. Many of the counter-resistance techniques approved by
SECDEF for use on UNLAWFUL combatants detained at GTMO would not/not
be legal under the Geneva Conventions if applied to roWs or CIs in Iraq. 1445
_ I n editing the CONOP, CAPT Donovan not only struck references to several
interrogation techniques that had been included in the March 6, 2003 draft Working Group
•

Col Moulton also stated that he had pitched the idea to JFCOM:
Having said that, I think the request needs to come from CENTCOM, not just _
I can
support, and have already presented the concept to JFCOM. We just need the invite. Long-term
is to identify the need for an OSD OPR [Office of Primary Responsibility] for strategic
debrieftng/interrogation. To put it into football terms, we (JPRA) are the quarterback for
defensive resistance operations - there is no quarte~iveresistance opemtions.
Where that responsibility would ultimately fall (JP~ is not the issue, but mther
that someone has to take the lead.

Email from Col Moulton to JPRA CENTCOM LNO (September 3, 2(03).
1442

Russell Trip Report at 6; see also email from Mike Lampe to David Ayres (August 28, 2003).

1443

Email from CAPT Donovan to Col Moulton, Col Atkins, Mr. Wirts, and Mr. Jagielski (September 26, 2(03).

1444 Ibid
1445

Ibid

187

report, but also noted that even those techniques approved by the Secretary of Defense for use at
GTMO might not be lawful for use on detainees in Iraq. 1446
_
CAPT Donovan also substantially revised JPRA's "critical operational
exploitation principles" by, for example, adding that detainee treatment must be "in accordance
with the approved [Rules of Engagement]" and clarifying that Rules of Engagement must be .
within U.S. law and policy including - but not simply limited to -the Torture Convention. 1447
CAPT Donovan struck JPRA's reference to "constant sensory deprivation" completely, noting
that the technique was neither approved by the March 6, 2003 Working Group report nor by the
Secretary of Defense in his April 16, 2003 guidance for SOlITHCOM. 1448
_
Days later, CAPT Donovan raised his concerns about the CONOP to LTG
Wagner, JFCOM's Deputy Commander, and Maj Gen James Soligan, JFCOM's Chief of Staff,
in anticipation of a scheduled visit by the two to JPRA 1449 CAPT Donovan stated that while it
made "a certain amount of sense to seek JPRA's advice regarding interrogation techniques that
[had] been successfully used against us by our enemies," he was concerned that the SMU TF
"may have gone a bit further by asking JPRA to develop a CONOP for "more effective"
interrogations [by the SMU] ofHVTs captured in Iraq.,,14S0 He expressed particular concerns
with the "interrogation techniques" included in the CONOP:
A number of the 'interrogation techniques' suggested by JPRA in their draft
CONOP are highly aggressive (such as the 'water board') and it probably goes
without saying that if JPRA is to include such techniques in a CONOP they
prepare for an operational unit in another [Area of Responsibilityl, they need to be
damn sure they're appropriate in both a legal and a policy sense. 1 S1

13.

JFCOM VerifIeS Team Chiefs Account of Events in Iraq (U)

(U) In May 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (lG) initiated a
review of DoD directed reports of detainee abuse. 14S2 As part ofthat review, the DoD IG looked
into JPRA's "offensive" interrogation support. In response to questions from the DoD IG, CAPT
Alan Kaufman, the JFCOM SJA, initiated an inquiry into JPRA's September 2003 support to the
SMU TF in Iraq. According to CAPT Kaufman, the scope of the JFCOM inquiry was narrow,
focusing only on whether or not the incidents described in Lt Col Kleinman's trip report had

Concept ofOperations For
HVT Exploitation at 6 (hereinafter "Concept ofOperations For HVT Exploitation-Version 2").
1447

Concept ofOperations For HVT Exploitation - Version 2 at 2.

1448

Ibid.

1449

Email from CAPT Dan Donovan to LTG Wagner, Maj Gen Soligan (September 29, 2003).

1450

Ibid

14'1

Ibid.

14'2

DoD IG Report.

188

been reported up the chain of command to JFCOM. 1453 On September 23, 2005, after JFCOM
concluded its inquiry, JFCOM's Deputy Commander LTG Wagner sent a memo to the DoD IG
stating:
This command looked into the information flow between the requesting unit, Joint
Personnel Recovery Agency, (JPRA) and the chain of command at USJFCOM
with regard to JPRA's participation in the two subject missions to assist in the
global war on terror. While most requests and decisions were verbal, I concluded
that information did flow up the chain of command to the appropriate authority.
Action was taken based on JPRA Commanding Officer's (CO) judgment and.
input from the chain of command ... 1454
(U) The memo continued:

The actions Lt Col Kleinman witnessed did occur. However, all others involved,
including the JPRA [Commanding Officer] and the [Commanding Officer] of the
task force believed them to be authorized actions under the existing decisions by
DoD General Counsel. The [Commanding Officer] conveyed this to Lt Col
Kleinman both during and after the deployment. Lt Col Kleinman did not seek
any other response or relief, nor take any issue up his chain of command. 1455

Major General Geoffrey Miller Leads GTMO Assessment Team to Iraq (U)
1.

CJTF-7 Commander ItkntifleS DefICiencies (U)

(U) During the summer of2003 Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) ass~ed control
of coalition forces in Iraq from its predecessor, the Combined Forces Land Component
Command (CFLCC). The Commander of CJTF-7, LTG Sanchez, said that when he took over
from CFLCC he identified deficiencies with existing intelligence operations. 1456 LTG Sanchez
said that he participated in regular video teleconferences and phone calls with CENTCOM and
the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (OSD) during which he shared his concerns about his
command's intelligence capabilities and asked for assistance. LTG Sanchez stated:

I was very concerned about our ability to really push the envelope to the limits of
our authority in interrogations. I went back to Washington and said "You've got
to send us some help because this is a problem that is way beyond annhing we
could imagine and it's a problem that hasn't been faced by our Army.,,14 7

1453

Committee staff interview of CAPT Alan Kaufman (September 17, 2(07).

1454 The ''two'' missions refer to the September 2003 trip to Iraq and the September 2002 JPRA training at Fort
Bragg. Memo from LTG Robert Wagner, Follow up response to June 2003 USJFCOM 10 Meeting on DoD 10
Inquiry to USJFCOM of27 May 2005 (September 23,2005)
1455

Ibid

1456

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20,2007).

1457

Army IG, Interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23, 2(04) at 3.

189

(U) Even before the CITF-7 Commander sought assistance, however, discussions had
apparently taken place about whether to send MG Geoffrey Miller, the GTMO Commander, to
Iraq to assess operations there. In May 2003, before CITF-7 took command in Iraq from
CFLCC, LTG Ronald Burgess, the Director for Intelligence (J-2) at the Joint Stafftold MG
Miller that a request would be forthcoming for him to lead an assessment trip to Iraq. 1458
According to an investigation conducted by MG George Fay and LTG Anthony Jones, the Joint
Stafflater requested that SOUTHCOM send a team to assist CENTCOM and the Iraq Survey
Group "with advice on facilities and operations specific to screening, interrogations, HUMINT
collection, and interagency integration in the short and long term.,,1459
(U) The.Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) Stephen Cambone said that
MG Miller was asked to go to Iraq "at my encouragement, to take a look at the situation as it
existed there.,,1460 LTG William Boykin, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and Warfighter Support said that the decision to send MG Miller to Iraq was made in a meeting
that included USDI Cambone and the Secretary ofDefense. 1461

GTMO Assessment Team Travels to Iraq (U)

_
From August 31 to September 10, 2003, MG Miller led a team to assess
intelligence operations in Iraq. 1462 The ITF-GTMO Commander was accompanied by several
ITF-GTMO and former ITF-GTMO staff, including LTC Diane Beaver, the former SJA, and
David Becker, the former Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief. Additionally, MG Miller
brought representatives from the CIA and the DoD Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITF).
MG Miller said that the purpose of his trip was to "make an assessment for the chain of
command," about the ability of U.S. forces in Iraq to conduct "strategic interrogation and
intelligence development and detention operations in theater.,,1463
(U) The day after arriving in Iraq, MG Miller met with LTG Sanchez and described the
purpose ofthe assistance visit, 1464 MG Miller said that his team was aware that the Geneva
Conventions applied in Iraq and told LTG Sanchez that he would have to decide what
recommendations were applicable to his command. MG Miller also met with MG Barbara Fast,
the CJTF-7 Director of Intelligence, and gave her the same briefing.

14~ Anny IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 65; AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib
Detention Facility and 205 tb Military Intelligence Brigade (August 24, 2004) at 57 (hereinafter "Fay Report").
1459

Fay Report at 57.

Allegations of Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Anned Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg.
108-868 (May 7, 2004, May 11, 2004) at 41,98.

1460

1461

Anny IG, Interview of LTG William Boykin (November 17, 2(05) at 3.

1462 MG Geoffrey Miller, Assessment ofDoD Counterterrorism Interrogation and Detention Operations in Iraq (U)
(undated) at 2 (hereinafter "Miller Report.")
1463

Anny IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 65.

1464

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007).

190

GTMO Team VISits Iraq Survey Group (lSG) (U)

(U) Following an initial visit to the Corps Holding Area at Camp Cropper, MG Miller's
assessment team visited the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) facilities. 1465 The ISG was established in
June 2003 with the mission to fmd weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or evidence of weapons
ofmass destruction and to provide support to the CIA special advisor. 1466 As part of its effort to
gather intelligence on WMD, the ISG interrogated and debriefed high value detainees, such as
former members of Saddam Hussein's regime. 1467 When MG Miller's team arrived at the
facility, the~ received a briefing from ISG personnel, toured the facilities, and observed ongoing
operations. 468
(U) Chief Warrant Officer Brian Searcy, who was Chief ofInterrogation at the ISG
accompanied MG Miller and his team on the tour. CWO Searcy told the Committee that during
the tour, MG Miller remarked that the ISG was "running a country club" and suggested that they
were too lenient with detainees. 1469 He said that MG Miller recommended the ISG shackle
detainees and make them walk on gravel rather than on concrete pathways to show the detainees
who was in control. CWO Searcy also recalled that the IfF-GTMO Commander suggested that
the ISG "GTMO-ize" their facility. 1470

Several members of the assessment team recalled the conditions at the Corps Holding Area. LTC Beaver
described the facility as "grotesque" and recalled telling lawyers at cm -7 about "stagnant water, maggots, feces
approximately 6 inches tall on the toilets and running down the sides of the toilets." She told the Committee that she
saw senior non-commissioned officers who were oblivious to their surroundings and that she recalled one guard tell
the visiting team "I don't give an. [expletive] if [the Iraqi prisoners] die."

146'

MG Miller said he was "dismayed and shocked at the operations" at Camp Cropper, referring to them as
"inappropriate, unprofessional, and not humane." MG Miller also called it "shocking'" that "the guards didn't even
know the rules of engagement for use ofdeadly force." MG Miller said that he told LTG Sanchez: "you have a
major problem at Camp Cropper and you need to take action now." According to MG Miller, LTG Sanchez asked
him to share his assessment with the 800th MP BDE Commander BG Janis Karpinski and direct that "corrections be
made in the next 48 hours." MG Miller said that, in a subsequent meeting with BG Karpinski, he met with
"significant pushback." He recalled his reaction in that meeting. "[I] kind of cleared the room and told General
Karpinski, 1 said these are the fmdings, if you don't agree with them, let's you and 1 go see General Sanchez because
he has directed that you take action to have corrective action be taken and in place within 48-hours. And so she
called the staff back in and started to go forward with it."
MG Miller told the Committee that BG Karpinski accepted the guidance, but not willingly. According to LTC
Beaver, the Corps Holding Area at Camp Cropper was closed shortly after the team left Iraq. Sworn Statement of
LTC Diane Beaver (December 10, 2004) at 1; Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07);
Army!G, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (June 28, 2(05) at 68.
1466

DoD!G, Interview of LTG Keith Dayton (May 25,2(05) at 10.

1467 Ibid.
1468

at 52.

Committee staff interview of Brian Searcy (June 4,2007).

1469 Ibid
14'70

Ibid.

191

(U) MG Miller did not recall referring to the ISG as a "country club" and said that, as far
as he knew, he "never used the word GTMO_ize.,,1471 However, he did recall telling ISG
personnel that he was troubled that the ISG were treating detainees with too much respect, which
was not, in his opinion, how prisoners ought to be treated. 1472
(U) Mike Kamin, the ISG's Collection Manager said that LtCol Ken Rapuano, the ISG's
Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIOC) Chief, was "energized" after meeting with MG
Miller and said that the GTMO Commander had told him about techniques like temperature
manipulation and sleep deprivation. 1473 Ac~Mr. Kamin, ISG JIDC personnel balked at
an ISG strategic debriefer said that he
the idea of implementing such techniques. _
wrote a letter to his chain of command stating that he would resign ifthe techniques were
. Iemented 1474
unp
(U) LtCol Rapuano said that he met with MG Miller and members of his team in a
meeting with MG Keith Dayton, the ISG Commander, and other members ofISG's leadership.
UCol Rapuano said that he did not recall a discussion of specific interrogation techniques but
did recall "some discussion of procedures for air conditioning cells.,,147S LtCol Rapuano said did
not recall any discussions of sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
(U) At the end of the visit, MG Miller met with MG Dayton and members of his staff.
MG Dayton said that MG Miller told him that the ISG was "not getting much out ofthese
people" and was "not getting the maximum.,,1476 MG Dayton said he asked what was meant by
that and was told "you haven't broken [the detainees]" psychologically. 1477 MG Dayton said that
MG Miller told him that he would "get back to you with some ideas of how you can Rerhaps deal
with these people where you can actually break them, some techniques you can use." 478 The
ISG Commander stated:

I remember very clearly saying, "Geoff, slow down. We're not changing anything right
now. You know, we think we're within the rules. If you want me to change something,

1471 Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007); Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller for
Javal Davis trial (August 21,2004). The former JTF-GlMO ICE Chief David Becker, who was present during the
ISG visit did not recall the MG Miller using the term UG lMO-ize." Committee staff interview of David Becker
(September 17, 2007).
1472

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

1473

Committee staff interview of Mike Kamin (May 30, 2007).

1474

Committee staff interview of _

(May 23, 2007).

147~ LtCol Rapuano said that "the issue discussed, without decision, was if it was appropriate that detainees were
being provided cooler living conditions than most Coalition personnel had in their living quarters and work areas,
and whether only the cooperative detainees should be rewarded with cooler cells." Kenneth Rapuano answers to
September 3,2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (September 16, 2008).
1476

DoD!G, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005) at 33.

1477

Ibid.

1478

Ibid

192

you give me something in writing that you think needs to be changed. I'll have my
lawyers look at it. 1479
(U) Although MG Miller recalled saying that he was troubled that detainees at the ISG
were being treated with too much respect, he did not recall using the term "break.,,1480 As to
techniques to get more information from detainees, MG Miller said he only recalled discussing
the possibility ofISG interrogating detainees more frequently. According to MG Dayton, MG
Miller never followed up with him after the trip. 1481

GTMO Team VISits Special Mission Unit Task Force (U)

Following the visit to the ISG, MG Miller, John Antonitis, the former Director ofthe
Joint Interrogation Group at ITF-GTMO, and the Superintendent o~F-GTMO,
visited the Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) facility. _
the SMU
TF Commander, said he had contacted MG Miller at ITF-GTMO to request assistance with his
detention and interrogation operations. 1482 MG Miller, however, said that~did
not request the visit and th~U TF was not even on his initial itinerary.
In
fact, MG Miller described _
as not "open" to a visit and said that when his staff
called the SMU TF to schedule the visit, they initially said "no" to the visit.

II MG Miller said that he and two other members of his team met with~
and a few of his operators for about 45 minutes to an hour at the SMU TF facility.
The ITFGTMO Commander did not see an SOP for SMU TF interrogations and recalled that the SMU
TF Commander told him the SMU TF was using operators as interrogators. MG Miller said that
he told
that he needed to establish interrogation authorities and obtain qualified
interrogators. For several month~ing with MG Miller, SMU TF Legal Advisors
to sign an interrogation policy for the facility
had tried, without success, to get _
under his command. 1485
• While she did not accompany the ITF-GTMO Commander on his visit to the SMU
TF, LTC Beaver, the former ITF-GTMO SJA, said that a Legal Advisor for the SMU TF
contacted her and arranged to meet with her at Camp Victory. 1486 According to LTC Beaver, the
SMU TF Legal Advisor raised concerns with her about physical violence being used b SMU TF
personnel during interrogations, including punching, choking, and beating detainees. 14 7 He told

1419

Ibid at 34.

1480

Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2001).

1481 DoD IG, Interview of MG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005) at 34~ Committee staff interview of LTG Keith Dayton
(June I, 2001).

1482

Committee staff interview o _ C O c t o b e r 10,2001).

1483

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2001).

1484

Ibid

1485

See Section XII A, supra.

1486

Sworn Statement of LTC Diane Beaver (December 10, 2004) at 1.

1487

Committee staff interview of LTC Diane Beaver (November 9,2001).

her that he was "risking his life" by talking to her about these issues. 1488 LTC Beaver told the
Committee that the S M U ~ i dhe had also raised these issues with the Commander
ofthe SMU TF, but that
was not receptive to his concerns.

LTC Beaver told the Committee that she infonned both COL Marc Warren (the
CITF-7 SJA) and MG Miller about her conversation with the SMU TF Legal Advisor. 1489
When he met with the Committee, MG Miller did not recall LTC Beaver bringing those concerns
to his attention. 1490 A slide presentation summarizing the GTMO assessment team's visit to
Iraq, however, stated that there were "concerns about [SMU TF] interrogation practices such as
physical contact and choking.,,1491 The same presentation noted that other governmental
agencies "won't interrogate at [the SMU TF] facility because of current treatment concerns.,,1492

GTMO Team Discusses Interrogations with CJTF-7 (U)

(U) During their assessment visit, the ITF-GTMO Commander's team held several
meetings with CJTF-7 interrogation personnel at Abu Ghraib and Camp Victory. According to
COL Thomas Pappas, the 20S th MI BDE Commander, conversations with MG Miller focused on
the range of intelligence capabilities that would enable effective interrogations. 1493 COL Pa.r~as
stated that the "tenor ofthe discussions was that we had to get tougher with the detainees.,,1
(U) CPT Wood, the Interrogation Officer in Charge (OIC) at Abu Ghraib said her
conversations with the ITF-GTMO Commander "centered on renovations and improvements of
facilities, challenges of interrogation operations, and the need for increased [Military
Police/Military Intelligence] cooperation.,,1495 CPT Wood believed that MG Miller and his team
wanted to build a "miniature Guantanamo Bay.,,1496 In her view, however, the GTMO concept
was not applicable to Abu Ghraib. She stated:

... Abu Ghraib wasn't GTMO. The prison was an austere environment; it was not
conducive to interrogation operations like GMTO. That was actually built and
designed to facilitate interrogation operations. We didn't have the MP force that
was necessary for such a high population and we were frequent targets of small
arms and mortar attacks. We worked in a hundred and thirty degree weather

1488

Ibid

1489

Ibid

14llO

Committee staff interview 0 f MG Geofli'ey Miller (Decemher 6, 2007).

1491

Slide presentation, The GTMO Commander- Team Visit to Iraq (undated).

1492

Ibid

COL Pappas stated that the discussions were broad but focused on the understanding that "interrogation is what
drives the train," as well as developing a "singular unified purpose that was to extract information" from detainees.
Army IG,lnterview of COL Thomas Pappas (April 12, 2006) at la, 12, 15.
1493

1494

Ibid at 10.

149~

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 21, 2004) at 2.

1496

Army IG,lnterview ofCPT Carolyn Wood (May 8,2006) at 12.

194

without air conditioning and we went throu~ the winter without heat. Most of
the detainees were not of intelligence value. 1 97
(U) MG Miller said that he spent parts ofthree days at Abu Ghraib with COL Pappas and

CPT Wood discussing how to improve operations. 1498 LTG Sanchez recalled that the team
"recommended the creation of a command policy" on interrogations and the team provided
CITF-7 with electronic copies of SOPs and a copy ofa Joint Staffpolicy memorandum entitled
"Interrogation Techniques in the War on Terrorism,,1499 According to MG Miller, members of
his assessment team also discussed interrogation authorities and techniques during their meetings
with CITF-7 personnel. 1SOO
(U) CPT Wood said that members ofthe GTMO assessment team had, in their

possession, copies ofthe proposed interrogation policy she had copied from the SMU Task
Force's interrogation·policy and submitted to her chain of command prior to the assessment
team's visit. 1SOI That proposed policy included presence of military working dogs, stress
positions, sleep management, 20-hour interrogations, isolation, and yelling, loud music, and light
contro1. 1S02 CPT Wood said that a member ofthe GTMO assessment team referred to her
proposal as a "good start," but told her that CITF-7 "should consider something along the lines
of what's approved for use in [GTMO]."IS03 LTC Beaver recalled reviewing CPT Wood's
proposed SOP. LTC Beaver said that she was concerned about the SOP because she knew that,
"in a Geneva setting, it was potentially a problem," that she brought it to the attention of COL
Marc Warren, the CITF-7 SJA and recommended that he review it IS04
(U) David Becker, the former ITF-GTMO ICE Chief, recalled discussing stress positions,

dogs, and nudity with COL Pappas during the visit. Mr. Becker said:
[W]hat I told Pappas was, look I understand they're doing all kinds of different
approaches out there. And I talked about the memo that was approved for
Guantanamo at one point. I said look, when you use stress positions; when you
use dogs; when you use - I mean when you use stress positions, dogs, nakedness .
. . the concept ofthe conversation was as you develop these techniques, talk to the
interrogators. Figure out what they want to use and put it in writing. And you
have to establish left and right lanes in the road for the conduct of interrogations.
And you've got to do it in writing. And then you've got to build the interrogation

1497 Army

!G, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (August 15, 2(06) at 45.

1498

Army IG, Statement ofMG Geoffrey Miller (June 19,2004) at 2.

1499

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 7.

1'00

Army!G, Statement ofMG Geoffrey Miller (June 19,2004) at 2.

1'01

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 21,2004) at 6; see Section XII B, supra.

1'02

Alpha Company, 519th MI BN SFIF Interrogation TIPS (August 27,2(03).

UOJ

Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 21,2004) at 6.

1~ SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008); Committee staff interview of LTC Beaver (October 11, 2007).

195

plan and you've got the interrogators to stick to it. And that's what I said. And
the "use of dogs" came up in that conversation. 1505
(U) COL Pappas recalled discussions with the GTMO assessment team about do~s being
"effective in doing interrogations with Arabs" and talk of"Arabs being fearful of dogs." 506
COL Pappas said that while no one from MG Miller's team said "okay, use the dogs while
you're doing an interrogation" there was discussion "about 'setting conditions for
interrogations. ",1507 COL Pappas later authorized the use of dogs in interrogations at Abu
Ghraib. 1508
(U) COL Pappas also recalled discussing dogs with MG Miller during the visit. In a
February 2004 interview, COL Pappas said that the use of dogs had been "a technique that [he]
had discussed with Miller" during the ITF-GTMO assistance visit to Iraq. 1509 COL Pappas
stated that MG Miller "said that they used military working dogs, and that they were effective in
setting the atmosphere for which ... you could get information.,,1510 In a later interview, COL
Pappas again described his discussions with MG Miller:

There was never any discussion [with the ITF-GTMO Commander] of the
execution of how the dogs would be used Now he did say that dogs were an
effective technique to use with the detainees. He did say we want to make sure
we control the detainee at all times. The I-bolts in the floor came from MG
Miller's team ... He did meet with some of the interrogators and told them to be
more aggressive, but he never told them how. His overtone was to be more
aggressive, but I never heard him say take dogs into the booths or anything like
that. 15H
(U) MAT David DiNenna, the Operations Officer (8-3) ofthe 320 th MP BN also recalled
a discussion with MG Miller about dogs. According to MAT DiNenna, during a meeting at Abu
Ghraib, MG Miller asked him whether or not they had military working dogs. 1512 MAT DiNenna

1505

Anny IG, Interview of David Becker (September 22,2(05) at 25.

Anny IG, Interview of COL Thomas Pappas (April 12, 2006) at 10. In a 2007 interview with Committee staff,
COL Pappas recalled having discussions with former JTF-GTMO ICE Chief David Becker, but did not recall if the
use of dogs came up in those discussions. Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2(07).
1506

1507

Anny IG, Interview of COL Thomas Pappas (April 12, 2006) at 10.

Memorandum from COL Thomas Pappas to LTG Ricardo Sanchez, Exception to c.rrF-7 Interrogation and
Counter Resistance Policy (December 14, 2003).

1508

1509

Anny 15-6 Investigation, Interview of COL Thomas Pappas (February 12,2004) at 28.

1510

Ibid. at 29.

1m Sworn Statement of COL Thomas Pappas (January 25, 2006) at 14.
1m MAJ David DiNenna, answers to February 13, 2006 written questions (undated). MAJ DiNenna wrote that he
had "requested dogs in June 2003 when I fIrst arrived at Abu Ghraib. We had 2 MWD [Military Working Dog]

teams at Camp Bucca prior to that and they proved to be a tremendous force multiplier. I requested MWD from that
point until they arrived in November 2003."

196

told MG Miller that they did not, but that he had "requested them when [he] first arrived at Abu
[Ghraib], and since that time, had made numerous requests.,,1513 MAJ DiNenna said:
MG Miller then looked at COL Pappas and stated that dogs have been extremely
useful at GITMO. He stated, "These people are scared to death of dogs, and the
dogs have a tremendous affect.,,1514
(U) MAJ DiNenna said that he was "concerned that [MG Miller] was implying MI would
receive the dogs at Abu [Ghraib], yet I desperately needed them as a force multiplier for the
facilities. ,,1515
(U) MGMiller maintained that he and COL Pappas "never discussed using dogs in

interrogations.,,1516 He stated that his discussions about dogs with COL Pappas were "in the
context of security operations and force protection.,,1517 MG Miller said, however, that he did
not discuss the use of dogs at all with BG Janis Karpinski, the Commander of the 800th MP BDE
or anyone else in her unit, which was responsible for security operations and force protection at
the prison. ISIS

GTMO Commander Recommends CJTF-7 Develop an Interrogation
Policy (U)

(U) During his assessment visit, the JTF-GTMO Commander provided an "interim
update" to LTG Sanchez and recommended that CJTF -7 "establish interrogation authorities so

the interrogators understand what their limits are.,,1519 MG Miller stated that he also directed
LTC Beaver to "let [CJTF-7] see what we use at Guantanamo as a template," referring to the
Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003 guidance for SOUTHCOM. 1520 MG Miller stated that,
with respect to GTMO's guidance from the Secretary, he told LTG Sanchez:
[T]he first caveat was that the Geneva Convention applied here. You must use
only Geneva Convention authorities. You may not use anything other unless you
get approval from SecDef to go about doing that. And so if you're going to ask
for any of those, you got to go through the CENTCOM Commander and up to
JCS and OSD to get approval from there. 1521

Ibid

1514

Ibid

ljlj

Ibid at 21.

1516

Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 71.

1m Ibid
1'18

Ibid at 73.

lH9

Ibid at 69.

mOIbid
all

Ibid

197

(U) LTG Sanchez said that he instructed his SJA to develop an interrogation policy, the
"key purpose" of which was to ''unequivocally establish as policy adherence to the Geneva
Convention and to regulate approach techniques that we believed were derived from multiple
sources" including the Army Field Manual, and techniques used in Guantanamo Bay and
Mghanistan. 1S22
(U) LTC Beaver said that she left the April 16, 2003 memo from Secretary Rumsfeld
with the CITF-71egal staff She also said that she told COL Marc Warren, the CITF-7 SJA, and

other lawyers on the CITF-7 staffthat while the policy had worked at Guantanamo, that CITF-7
"would need to evaluate what was permissible in Iraq and what the command thought would
. th
i'
"IS23
work 10
s enVlfonment.
(U) According to COL Pappas, CITF-7 be~an drafting an interrogation policy while MG
Miller and his assessment team were still in Iraq.l 24 He said that LTC Beaver, and several
CITF-7lawyers worked on a memo at Camp Victory. MG Miller said that, while he did not
know who actually drafted the memo, LTC Beaver told him that she worked on the issue with
COL Warren and his staff. 1S2S LTC Beaver did not recall working on an interrogation policy
during the assessment visit. IS26

JTF-GTMO Assessment Team Produces Trip Report (U)

At the conclusion of the assessment trip, MG Miller produced a trip report that
team's
fmdings. 1S27 The trip report echoed what the ITF-GTMO Commander had
described the
told LTG Sanchez and MG Fast with regard to interrogation guidelines. The report stated "the
team observed that the Task Force [CITF-7] did not have authorities and procedures in place to
affect a unified strategy to detain, interrogate, and report information from detainees/internees in
Iraq. "IS28 While the report did not discuss specific interrogation approaches or techniques, it did
recommend ways in which the CITF could improve the interrogation process:
_

Interrogations are [being] conducted without a clear strategy for implementing a
long-term approach strategy and clearly defined interrogation policies and
authorities. To achieve rapid exploitation of internees it is necessary to integrate
detention operations, interrogation operations, and collection management under
one command authority.1S29

mz Statement of LIG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 7.
1'23

Sworn Statement ofLIC Diane Beaver (December 10, 2004) at 5.

m4 Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007).

m, Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).
m6 Committee staff interview of LIC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2007).
1m Miller Report
ms Ibid at 2.
m9Ibid at 4.

198

(U) Subsequent to the assessment trip, six GTMO personnel- three interrogators and
three analysts - were sent to Abu Ghraib to assist in implementing the GTMO recommendations
and in establishing a Joint Intelligence and Debriefmg Center. 1530

MG Miller Briefs Senior DoD OffICials on Assessment VISit (U)

(U) MG Miller presented his trip report to SOUTHCOM and was subsequently told that it
was forwarded to the Joint Staff and OSD. 1531 He was subsequently directed to brief senior
Department of Defense officials on his assessment visit and the report. MG Miller told the Army
Inspector General (rG) that the briefing took place in October and was attended by Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary ofDefense for Intelligence Steven
Cambone, as well as senior military officers including LTG Ronald Burgess, the Director for
Intelligence at the Joint Staff. According to MG Miller, his briefing covered "the ability ofthe
CITF-7 to be able to execute the strategic interrogation mission to develop intelligence, actual
intelligence and an assessment of CITF-7's ability to detain civilian detainees in accordance with
the Geneva Convention and ARI90_8.,,1532 Following the briefing, the GTMO Commander met
privately with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Cambone. 1533
(U) While MG Miller said that Under Secretary Cambone attended the briefing, Under
Secretary Cambone testified on May 11, 2004 before the Senate Armed Services Committee that
he was, in fact "not briefed" by the GTMO Commander on the trip report. 1534 In his written
answer to a question for the record following his testimony, Under Secretary Cambone stated
that, in fact, he "was never officially briefed on MG Miller's report."m5 Just over a week after
Under Secretary Cambone's testimony, MG Miller testified before the Committee that he had
"no direct discussions" with Under Secretary Cambone following his visit to Iraq. 1536
(U) In August 2004, however, MG Miller told Army Investigators that, followin~ his
return from Iraq he "gave an outbriefto both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone.,,15 7 The
GTMO Commander went on to state ''the meeting that I had with Secretary Cambone had
occurred after I returned... The discussion generally was about how we could improve the flow
of intelligence from Iraq through and in interrogations."m8

B30 Fay Report at

1'31

Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (June 28,2005) at 5,8.

m2 Ibid
m3

59.

at 4.

Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 82.

Allegations of Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg.
108-868 (May 11, 2004) at 339.

13:J4

B3'

Ibid at 371.

Allegations of Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg.
108-868 (May 19, 2004) at 594.

1'36

1337 Interview

ofMG Geoffrey Miller for Javal Davis trial (August 21,2004) at 3.

m8 Ibid.

199

(U) More than a year later, in October 2005, the Army IG asked MG Miller about his
testimony to the Committee that he had not had "direct discussions" with Under Secretary
Cambone. Despite previously describing a "discussion" with Under Secretary Cambone, MG
Miller told the IG that when asked at [the Senate Armed Services Committee] about discussions
with Under Secretary Cambone after his trip, "I said no because I didn't have discussions with
Cambone.',1539 MG Miller also told the Army IG that he didn't even know that the person
attending the meeting was Dr. Cambone until Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz used his name.',1540
The Army IG also asked MG Miller about the smaller meeting that he attended with Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Cambone immediately following his briefing. MG
Miller said that the reason for the smaller meeting was so that he could give the ''unvarnished
truth" about his visit and said that he told Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary
Cambone during that smaller meeting that CJTF-7 was at risk for "mission failure. ,,1541
(U) Under Secretary Cambone stated in December 2006 that his records indicated that he
"did attend MG Miller's briefing to Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz," but that he did "not remember
participating in any substantive discussions." Under Secretary Cambone said that he had "no
personal recollection" ofthe smaller meeting that took place subsequent to MG Miller's
briefing. 1542
(U) During his December 20, 2007 interview with Committee staff, MG Miller said that
he did not learn that Under Secretary Cambone was in attendance at the briefing until someone
referred to him by name either during or after his briefmg. 1543 He stated that, when he was asked
at the May 2004 Committee hearing about discussions with Under Secretary Cambone, he had
forgotten that Under Secretary Cambone had actually attended the briefing. MG Miller said his
use ofthe word "discussion" in his August 2004 testimony to describe his interaction with
Undersecretary Cambone was an imprecise use of words. MG Miller stated that, in the smaller
meeting he attended following his briefing with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Undersecretary
Cambone, that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz simply thanked him for his work.

Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy Established (U)
1.

CJTF-7 Commander Issues Policy Including Aggressive Interrogation
Techniques (U)

(U) On September 14,2003, less than a week after MG Miller's team left Iraq, LTG
Sanchez issued the first CJTF-7 "Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy." The September
14,2003 policy stated that the Geneva Conventions were applicable in
and that Coalition
Forces "will continue to treat all persons under their control humanely.',15 LTG Sanchez stated

Ira:!

1~39 Army

IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20.2005) at 79.

1~40

Ibid

1~41

Ibid. at 82.

1~42

Letter from Under Secretary Stephen Cambone to Senator John Warner (December 19, 2006).

B43

Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007).

B44

CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003).

200

that he issued the policy because FM 34-52 left the "universe of approaches to the imagination of
the interrogator" and demanded additional structure. 1545

(U) According to LTG Sanchez, the September 14,2003 policy "drew heavily" on the
Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003 guidance for GTMO. I546 Indeed, the September 14,2003
policy included all 24 interrogation techniques that were in that guidance, as well as techniques
that CPT Wood had copied from the SMU TF in Iraq's interrogation policy and submitted for
approval. The latter included the presence of military working dogs, stress positions, sleep
management, loud music, and light control. 1547 The techniques CPT Wood had copied from the
SMU TF policy had, in tum, been based on techniques included in the interrogation policy used
by the SMU TF in Afghanistan. That policy was influenced, in turn, by the Secretary of
Defense's December 2,2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at
GTMO. 1548
(U) Although some ofthe techniques authorized by the September 14, 2003 CITF-7
policy required the CITF-7 Commander's approval before they could be used on Enemy
Prisoners of War (EPWs), LTG Sanchez stated that "with few exceptions, persons captured after
May 1, 2003 were not entitled to EPW status as a matter oflaw.,,1549 CPT Wood said that, to her
knowledge, there were no EPWs held at Abu Ghraib. 1550
(U) LTG Sanchez stated that CITF-7 forwarded the September 14, 2003 policy to
CENTCOM with a cover memorandum stating that the policy was based on that used at
Guantanamo Bay, but "modified for applicability to a theater of war in which the Geneva
Conventions apply.,,1551 LTG Sanchez stated that his intent, unless otherwise directed, was to
"immediately implement the policy outlined in the memo.,,1552

Interrogation and Counter Resistance Policy Implemented at Abu
Ghraib(U)

(U) The September 14, 2003 policy went into effect for interrogators at Abu Ghraib as
soon as it was issued. CPT Wood stated that she briefed the new policy for all ofthe [number
1~4~

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 9, 12.

1546

Ibid at 8.

1547 The September 14, 2003 CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy did not include sensory
deprivation, which was also included in CPT Wood's August 27,2003 policy proposal. CITF-7 Interrogation and
Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003); Alpha Company, 519ib MI BN SFIF Interrogation TTPS (August
27,2003).
1548 The September 14, 2003 policy also included "Mutt and Jeff," which was part of the 1987 version of Army FM
34-52, but not the 1992 version of the Army Field Manual 34-52. CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance
Policy (September 14,2003).

cm_7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003); Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez
(October 2004) at 8.

1549

mo Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4.
1m Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 8, 12.
15'2

Ibid

201

of] interrogators and analysts working for her. She stated that during the briefin~, "the
interrogators took turns reading [the September 14 policy] line by line aloud." 15 3 She stated
that each interrogator present signed a document noting that he or she had received training on
the policy. CPT Wood said that personnel who arrived at Abu Ghraib after CITF-7 issued the
policy were briefed on it during in-processing.
(U) CPT Wood also developed a Memorandum for Record on CITF-7 Interrogation
Rules of Engagement (IROE) to be signed by all personnel at Abu Ghraib in contact with
detainees. 1554 The IROE stated that the interrogation approaches specified in Army FM 34-52, as
well as yelling, light control, loud music, deception, and false flag were "approved for all
detainees, regardless of status (security detainees, civilian internees, or EPWS).,,1555 Use of other
approaches authorized by the September 14, 2003 CrrF-7 memorandum, including stress
positions, presence of dogs, dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation, sleep adjustment,
and sleep management, were to be approved by the interrogation officer in charge or the noncommissioned officer in charge.
(U) At least one version ofthe IROE used a September 10, 2003 CITF-7 draft policy as
its basis, rather than the September 14 approved policy. 1556 That IROE also listed sensory
deprivation as "approved in accordance with the CITF-7 policy,',1557 While CPT Wood had
requested sensory deprivation and the technique had been included in a September 10, 2003 draft
policy, it was not among those listed in the September 14,2003 policy approved by CITF-7.
CPT Wood acknowledged that she may have used the wrong policy as a basis for her IROE. 1558

CENTCOM Raises Concerns About CJTF-7 Policy (U)

(U) LTG Sanchez said that when he issued the September 14, 2003 policy, there was
agreement in the CITF-71egal community that the techniques in the policy were lawful. He said
that that consensus was developed in the absence of guidance from CENTCOM, who he said
believed the issue was too contentious and would not give CITF-7 legal guidance. 1559 LTG
Sanchez said that ''time was of the essence" so he "decided to publish the September
memorandum knowing that discussions were ongoing as to the legality of some ofthe
approaches included in the memorandum. ,,1560

1m Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4.
1554 Memorandum for Record, CJI'F-7 Interrogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9,2003) (hereinafter "CJTF-7
Interrogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9, 2003)").
1m Ibid
1556

CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 10,2003).

1557

CJTF-7 Interrogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9, 2003).

1558 Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (February 11,2008); CJTF-7 Interrogation and CounterResistance Policy (September 10, 2003).
1559

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2007).

1560

Ibid; Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 8, 12.

202

_
LTO Sanchez stated that when the September 14, 2003 policy reached
CENTCOM, it "energized the legal community there and that COL Fred Pribble [the
CENTCOM SJA] had concerns.,,1561 LTG Sanchez said that CENTCOM lawyers thought some
techniques in the September 14 policy came too close to the boundary.1562 COL Marc Warren,
the CITF-7 SJA, stated that the CENTCOM SJA "raised concerns to us that the policy was
objectionable in that aspects ofthe approved approaches were impennissibly coercive.,,1563

II On September 15,2003, the day after the policy was issued, COL Warren sent a copy
to COL Pribble and William "Barry" Hammill, CENTCOM's Deputy SJA, stating ''this is pretty
tame stuff, largely a direct lift from the Army Interrogation FM. The genesis of this product was
the visit by MG Miller's GITMO team.,,1564 The next day, Mr. Hammill asked Major Carrie
Ricci, the Chief of International Law at CENTCOM to review the policy. 1565 That same day,
MAJ Ricci responded in an email stating that "Many of the techniques appear to violate [Geneva
Convention] III and IV and should not be used on [enemy prisoners of war] or [civilian
internees]. The [Geneva Conventions] prohibits all coercive interrogation techniques.,,1566

.On September 17,2003, COL Pribble sent a copy ofMAJ Ricci's email to COL
Warren who responded that "almost all ofthese techniques are right out of the Field Manual and
are in use now.,,1567 That same day, MAJ Ricci responded:
Gentlemen, it's the techniques that are not in the field manual that concern me.
Techniques such as dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation, sleep
adjustment, sleep management, yelling. loud music, light control, stress positions,
etc. many of these techniques appear to violate [Geneva Convention] III, Article
17: ''No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind
whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted,
or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
... My recommendation is that the interrogation policy be kept in confonnity
with the [Field Manual] ... I would hesitate to put in writing how we are directing
interrogations beyond what is in the [Field Manual]. If CITF-7 wants to take
advantage of the additional measures used at Ouantanamo, this should be limited
to detainees who are not entitled to [Geneva Convention] protections or else I

1'61

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23, 2004) at 4.

Committee staff interview of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2007).

I'63

COL Mark Warren, Judge Advocate Interview Questions (June 25, 2004).

1'64

Email from COL Marc Warren to COL Fred Pribble and William Hammill (September 15, 2003).

1'6'

Email from William Hammill to MAl Carrie Ricci (September 16, 2003).

1'66

Email from MAJ Carrie Ricci to William Hammill (September 16, 2003).

I'67 Email from COL Marc Warren to COL Fred Pribble, MAl Carrie Ricci, and William Hammill (September 17,
2003).

203

believe we should still seek SECDEF approval- and I am doubtful some of these
techniques will be approved. The policy as written is troublesome. 1568
_Later that day, MAl Ricci spoke with COL Warren by phone. 1569 In a subsequent
email to Mr. Hammill she said that COL Warren was "going to try and re-work the policy. He
is understandably unhappy that the policy was already signed by the [Commanding General] and
now the SJA has the regrettable task oftellin~ the [Commanding General] the policy has
problems - but that's what we get paid for."l 70
•
In a September 22,2003 email to MAl Ricci, CENTCOM SJA COL Fred Pribble
said "During my sitdown with COL Warren in Baghdad, he was pretty quick to admit that we
(read you) had made the right call and that they would scrub the policy."l571
_ L T G Sanchez said that after CITF-7 and CENTCOM lawyers began to debate the
policy that he and COL Warren again reviewed the memo. LTG Sanchez stated that COL
Warren told him:
"Yes, they are legal. There is some dissent and different opinions within the legal
community. Some of these may be harsher than others, and in order for us to
eliminate debate and get consensus, we probably ought to put some ofthese aside,
and ob, by the way, they probably wouldn't get us too much anyway if we
implemented them." I said "Okay, fine let's get consensus. Go ahead and
constrain it (the September policy). ,,1572

CJTF-7 Issues New Interrogation Policy (U)

(U) On October 12,2003, nearly a month after MAl Ricci's concerns were brought to
COL Warren's attention, LTG Sanchez issued a revised interrogation policy, eliminating all
techniques not listed in either the 1987 or 1992 versions ofthe Army Field manual. Techniques
removed from the list of authorized techniques included dietary manipulation, environmental
manipulation, sleep adjustment, false flag, presence of military working dogs, sleep
management, stress positions, and yelling, loud music, and light control. 1573 CITF-7 also
removed isolation and added "segregation" to the new policy. The October 12,2003 policy

Email from MN Carrie Ricci to COL Marc Warren, COL Fred Pribble, and William Hammill (September 16,
2(03).

1568

1569

Email from MN Carrie Ricci to William Hammill (September 17, 2003).

1570

Ibid

1m Email from COL Fred Pribble to MAJ Carrie Ricci and William Hammill (September 22, 2003).
1m Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23,2004) at 4.
1m The October 12, 2003 policy also eliminated two Army FM techniques - change of scenery up and change of
scenery down. CJTF-7 Memorandum for C2, Combined Joint Task Force Seven, C3, Combined Joint Task Force
Seven, Commander, 205 tb Military Intelligence Brigade, CJFF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy
(October 12, 2(03) (hereinafter "CJFF-7 Interrogation and C ounur-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003)").

204

stated that the CJTF-7 Commanding General had to approve se~egation in all cases exceeding
"30 days in duration, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive."l 74
(U) CJTF-7 removed ''the presence of military dogs" from the list of interrogation
techniques in the October 12,2003 policy, but added a line in the "General Safeguards" section
ofthe policy stating that "Should working dogs be present during interroBations, they will be
muzzled and under the control of a handler at all times to ensure safety." 575 Despite references
to dogs in both the September 14,2003 interrogation policy and the October 12,2003
interrogation policy, LTG Sanchez said that the "intent for the use of dogs was always focused
on the security contributions they make in a detention facility" and that there was "no explicit
direction, guidance, or condoning ofthe use of unmuzzled dogs in the conduct of
interrogations.,,1576 LTG Sanchez acknowledged that placement of "presence of military
working dogs" in the interrogation techniques section ofthe September 14 policy was
"confusing.,,1577 He said that he removed the "presence of military working dogs" :from the list
of interrogation techniques in the October policy and put it in the general safeguards section to
make it "clear that using dogs for the deliberate purpose of :frightening a detainee was not
pennitted.,,1578
(U) LTG Sanchez stated that "It is certainly clear under the October 2003 policy that the
use of military working dogs in interrogations would require an exception to policy granted by
me.,,1579 COL Pappas stated, however, that he believed that the October 12, 2003 interrogation
policy "delegated to me the authority to approve the use of muzzled dogs. ,,1580
(U) The October 12,2003 policy also stated that requests to use interrogation approaches
not listed in the policy "will be submitted to [the CITF-7 Commander] through CITF-7 [Director
for Intelligence] and will include a description ofthe proposed approach and recommended
safeguards." 1581
(U) CPT Wood at Abu Ghraib said that when the October 12,2003 policy was issued, her
interrogators signed a new Interrogation Rules of Engagement Memorandum (IROE).1582 The
new IROE listed all ofthe techniques identified in the October 12, 2003 policy and stated that
they were "approved for all detainees, regardless of status."1583 The IROE also listed approaches
m4 CJTF-7Inte"ogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2(03).
1m Ibid
m6 Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2(04) at 21; Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23,
2004) at 3 (emphasis added).
1377

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23, 2004) at 4, 5.

1378

Ibid

15'79

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 21.

1!80

Army IG, Interview of COL Thomas Pappas (ApriI12, 2(06) at 27.

1381

CJTF-7Inte"ogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2(03).

1382

Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4.

1'83

Memorandum for Record CJTF-7 Inte"ogationRules ofEngagement (October 16, 2003).

205

not explicitly approved in the October 12, 2003 policy, but which had to be requested through
the Interrogation Officer in Charge to the CJTF-7 Commanding General. The IROE listed nine
examples of such techniques, presence of military working dogs, stress positions, sensory
deprivation, dietary manipulation, environmental manipulation, sleep adjustment, isolation, sleep
management, and change of scenery down. 1584

SMU Task Force Issues a New Interrogation SOP (U)

On October 16 2003 a new
Commander,
took command ofthe SMU TF.
stated that he "used his subject matter experts to build the [interrogation] SOP consistent with
existing rules and regulations.,,1585 This SOP went into effect on October 25,2003. The
Department of Defense has not provided the Committee with a copy ofthe October 25,2003
SMU TF SOP. 1586
_
According to the Church Special Focus Team Report, however, the October 25,
2003 SMU TF policy included ten interrogation techniques not listed in the Army Field
Manual. 1587 Those techniques included controlled fear (muzzled dogs), stress positions, sleep
deprivation/adjustment, environmental manipulation, yelling, loud music, and light control,
removal of comfort items, isolation, false documents/report, multiple interrogator, and repeat and
control. 1588 Less than two weeks before the policy was finalized, several of these techniques,
including environmental manipulation, stress positions, muzzled dogs, and sleep adjustmenthad been removed from CJTF-Ts interrogation SOP after CENTCOM raised legal concerns
about them. 1589

B84

Ibid.

1 5 8 5 _estionnaire

(June 29, 2004) at 2.

The Department of Defense produced two documents to the Committee in response to the request for the
October SOP. Neither of those two documents is dated and one appears to be a draft written sometime after
December 18 2003. See Department of Defense Headquarters, Joint Task Force_Baghdad Airbase,
Iraq,_Battlefield Inte~tyrreamStanding Oper~dures; Department of Defense
Headquarters, Joint Task Force _ _ Baghdad Airbase, Iraq, _ _ Battiefield Interrogation Team and
temporary Facility Standing Operating Procedures. The Department stated in a March 10, 2008 letter that the
documents provided in response to the Committee's request for the October 25,2003 SOP were "reasonably close to
the time frame and location requested." Letter from ASD Robert Wilkie to Chairman Carl Levin (March 10, 2008).
The Department has also informed the Committee that after "multiple searches we were unable to locate an SOP
with the exact October 25, 2003 date." Email from Thomas Alexander to Committee staff (April 9, 2008).
1586.

1587

Church Special Focus Team Report at 12-13.

B88.

Although the Church Special Focus Team Report identified "repeat and control" as a technique that went
beyond the Army FM, it could also arguably be classified as a Field Manual technique.
1589

CJTF-Ts September 14, 2003 SOP included "sleep management" and "sleep adjustment." See SectionXll E,

supra.

206

~g been included in the October 25, 2003 SMU TF policy, which he

approv~indicated to DoD investigators in June 2004 that he had not
approved "environmental manipulation" or "presence of military working dogs.,,1590

_
There is evidence that at least one te~not in the SOP - removal of
clothing - was in use at the SMU TF in late 2003. _
stated that when he took
command in October 2003, he "discovered that some ofthe detainees were not allowed clothes"
,1591 He said that he did not
as an interrogation technique
know where the technique came from.
Weeks prior to his October 2003 arrival, however,
JPRA instructors had striEfed a detainee during their assistance visit to the SMU TF facility as
part ofan interrogation. 1 9 Terrence Russell, the JPRA training manager w h ~
JPRA team of instructors at the SMU TF, said that the detainee was stripped _
,15!14 Mr. Russell stated that
''we've done this 100 times, 1000 times with our [SERE school] students.,,1595
stated that he was ''uncomfortable'' with stripping detainees and
that "stripping a detainee just didn't seem right to [him] even though arguably, it was an
effective technique.,,1596 He said he terminated the practice in December 2003 or January 2004.

XIII. Interrogation Techniques and Detainee Mistreatment at Abu Ghraib (U)
(U) Between September and December 2003, military personnel at Abu Ghraib engaged
in what Major General Antonio Taguba would later call "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant,
and wanton criminal abuses" of detainees. 1597 Several instances ofabuse were captured in
photographs taken by the soldiers themselves and, in April 2004, some ofthose photographs
appeared in the media.
(U) Two Army investigations, one conducted by MG Taguba and the other conducted by
Major General George Fay would later find that abuses at Abu Ghraib were perpetrated directly
by both military police (MP) and military intelligence (MI) personnel. 1598 In addition to the
direct participation ofMI personnel in incidents of detainee abuse, MG Fay's investigation also
identified situations where MI pe~onnel solicited MPs to engage in detainee abuse, using such

1'_

Questionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 4.

HlIl Church Special Focus Team Report atl3;

Questionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 3.

1'!12
1'!13

Questionnaire (June 29,2004) at 3.

Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 117.

1'I)4.Ibid
l'lI'Ibid.
1'!16

Questionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 3.

1m MG Antonio Taguba, Article 15-6 Investigation ofthe 80rf' Military Police Brigade (hereinafter "Taguba
Report') at 16.
1'!18

Taguba Report at 16-17; Fay Report at 7.

207

methods as "isolation with sensory deprivation, removal of clothing and humiliation, [and] the
use of dogs as an interrogation tool to induce fear, and physical abuse. ,,1599
(U) MG Fay cited the inadequacy of interrogation doctrine as a "contributing factor" to
Abu Ghraib and stated that interrogation techniques developed and approved for use at GTMO
and in Mghanistan became "confused" at Abu Ghraib and "were implemented without proper
authorities or safeguards.,,1600 As discussed above, some of the techniques MG Fay found to be
abusive were also authorized for use by military interrogators conducting interrogations at the
SMU TF facility in Iraq.
(U) Interviews conducted by investigators for both MG Fay and MG Taguba contain
evidence that the use of aggressive interrogation techniques like use of military working dogs,
stress positions, and removal of clothing, was not limited to the specific incidents described in
those reports. In fact, those interviews appear to indicate that the use of some ofthese
techniques was widespread at Abu Ghraib.

Use ofMilitary Working Dogs (U)

(U) The use of military working dogs to exploit detainee fears was authorized on
December 2,2002 by the Secretary of Defense for use at Guantanamo Bay. 1601 Weeks later, the
technique appeared in a January 24, 2003 memorandum from CITF-180's Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate (SJA) and was subsequently considered available for use in Mghanistan. 1602 The use
of dogs was also among those techniques authorized for use at the SMU TF in Iraq. 1603

_Following MG Miller's assistance visit to Iraq in August and September 2003,
CITF-7 had submitted a request for three military police dog teams "to provide an increased
security posture" to support detention and interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib. l604
1605 According to MG
(U) The dog teams arrived at Abu Ghraib on November 20,2003.
Fay's report, "abusing detainees with dogs started almost immediately after the dogs arrived"
1606
with the first incident occurring on November 24,2003.
Major General Fay's report
documented seven other times over the next six weeks when dogs were used, including three
occasions in which they were used in interrogations, one occasion the report referred to as "an

1'99 Fay Report at

1600

Ibid at 8.

1601

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002).

1602 Fay Report at

83; Church Report at 7.

1603

DoD IG Report at 16.

1604

See Deployment Order 231, referencing U.S. CENTCOM October 9, 2003 request for forces.

160'

Fay Report at 83.

1606

Ibid

208

apparent [Military Intelligence] directed use of dogs in detainee abuse," and one incident
described as dogs being used likely as a '''softening up' technique for future interrogations.,,1607
_COL Pappas, the Commander of the 20S th MI BDE, said that on December 12, 2003
he "specifically approved the dogs to be used.,,1608 A December 14,2003 memo for LTG
Sanchez, the CITF-7 Commander, signed by COL Pappas indicated that COL Pappas approved
the "presence of military working dogs" for three detainees captured in conjunction with Saddam
Hussein. I609 COL Pappas stated that he "couldn't say for sure" whether he actually sent the
memo to LTG Sanchez, but that he "signed it with the intent of it going to him.,,1610 LTG
Sanchez said that no request for the use of dogs in interrogations "was ever received or approved
by me.,,1611
(U) One intelligence analyst stated that it was "common knowledge" that one soldier
used "dogs while he was on his special projects" working directly for COL Pappas after the
capture of Saddam Hussein.,,1612 And an MP said that dogs could be used in interrogations "with
the proper authorization," and that "dogs were used to scare the detainee into confessing or
producing intelligence.,,1613
(U) An Army dog handler said that "MI would ask me to use my dog as a psychological
and physical deterrent. It would consist of a dog walking up to a prisoner and the dog barking at
a prisoner.,,1614 The same dog handler said that "Someone from MI gave me a list of cells, for
me to go see, and pretty much have my dog bark. at them... Having the dogs bark at detainees
was psychologically breaking them down for interrogation purposes. ,,161S
(U) On February 19, 2004, after MG Taguba had begun his investigation into the abuses
at Abu Ghraib, the Commander of the S04th MI Brigade issued a memorandum stating that
"military working dogs will not be present during the interrogation or debriefing ofany detainees
at the Abu Ghraib facility.,,1616

1607 Ibid

1608

at 85-87.

Sworn statement of COL Thomas Pappas (January 25, 2006) at 7.

1609 Memorandum from COL Thomas Pappas for LTG Ricardo Sanchez, Exception to CJl'F-7 Interrogation and
Counter Resistance Policy (December 14, 2003).
1610

Sworn statement of COL Thomas Pappas (January 25, 2006) at 9.

1611

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 21.

1611

Statement of Intelligence Analyst (May 25,2004).

1613

Statement of 504th Ml BN soldier (June 4, 2004).

1614

Statement of Army dog handler (undated).

161'

Interview of Army dog handler (February 13,2004).

Memo from COL Foster P Payne II for Joint Interrogation and Debriefmg Center, Suspension of Use ofMilitary
Working Dogs (February 19, 2004).

1616

209

Stress Positions and Physical Training (U)

(U) Stress positions were authorized for use in interrogations at GTMO by the Secretary
1617
of Defense on December 2, 2002.
The technique was used in interrogations in Afghanistan in
1618
Stress positions were also authorized for use at the SMU TF in Iraq.1619
2002 and 2003.
(U) CPT Wood at Abu Ghraib said that stress positions and forced exercise regimens
(also called compulsory physical training) were used in interrogations and the September 14,
2003 CJTF-7 policy explicitly authorized the use of stress positions. 1620 CPT Wood's October 9,
2003 Interrogation Rules of Engagement (IROE) for interrogators listed stress positions as an
approved technique. 1621 While the October 12,2003 CJTF-7 policy removed stress positions
from the list of authorized interrogation techniques, a subsequent IROE for interrogators
continued to list the technique, with the caveat that its use "must be approved by the
[Commanding General], CITF-7 prior to employment.,,1622
(U) MG Fay's report stated that "What started as nakedness and humiliation, stress and
physical training (exercise) carried over into sexual and physical assaults... ,,1623 The report
described one incident where a detainee was ''forced to stand while handcuffed in such a way to
dislocate his shoulder" and described a photograph of an interrogation 1?eing conducted while
another detainee was squatting on a chair which MG Fay called "an unauthorized stress
position.,,1624
(U) One MP said he "saw MI use stress positions" at Abu Ghraib. 1625 Similarly, the
warden of the Hard Site at Abu Ghraib stated that military intelligence made detainees engage in
physical training and he saw "detainees holding buckets, anns out, and other drillS.,,1626 An MP
Platoon leader stated that he also "observed [military intelligence personnel] making detainees
do physical training.,,1627

1617

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

1618 U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Bagram Branch Office Memo, CID Report ofInvestigation FINAL -0134-02-CID36923533 (October 8, 2004).
1619

DoD IG Report at 16.

1620 cm -7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003); Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn
Wood (August 15, 2(06) at 30.

1621

Cfl'F-7 Interrogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9, 2003).

1m cm-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003); Cfl'F-7 Interrogation Rules of
Engagement (October 16, 2003).
16:13

Fay Report at 10.

1624

Ibid at 68, 82.

162'

Statement of MP soldier (June 6, 2004).

1626

Interview ofMP Company Commander (February 21,2004).

1627

Interview of MP Platoon leader (June 6, 2004).

210

(U) When asked whether he had ever been directed by MI or another government agency

(OGA) to "soften up" a prisoner, one MP said "Yes, I would have them do physical training to
tire them out.,,1628 Another MP stated that military intelligence personnel insinuated that MP
soldiers should abuse detainees telling them to "'Loosen this guy up for us.' 'Make sure he has a
bad night.' 'Make sure he gets the treatment. ",1629
(U) One interrogator confIrmed the practice of having MPs "soften up" detainees, stating

that the "MPs did prepare prisoners prior to interrogations by having them do physical exercises
and yelling at them. The interrogators would verbally discuss, with an MP, a detainee and his
cooperativeness and various methods to deal with a detainee such as physical exercise at random
hours ofthe night and yelling.,,1630 Other MI soldiers confmned the use of stress positions by
interrogators at Abu Ghraib. One interrogation analyst stated that he witnessed the use of a
stress position where a detainee was "handcuffed to the floor." 1631 The same soldier referred to
that use ofthe stress position as "in following with the interrogation Elan.,,1632 An interrogator
likewise stated that she "did use a stress position" in interrogations. 1 33 Another interrogator who
was deployed from GTMO to Abu Ghraib following the MG Miller assistance visit said that
"stress positions were authorized" when he first got to Abu Ghraib in October 2003 and that he
.
d use 0 f t he techni que. 1634
wltnesse
C.

Removal ofClothing (U)

(U) Removal of clothing was authorized by the Secretary of Defense for use at GTMO
on December 2, 2002. 1635 The technique was also recommended as an effective technique in a
January 24, 2003 memo written b~ the CJTF -180 Deputy SJA and was subsequently considered
approved policy in Afghanistan. 1 36

The Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) in Iraq also used "removal of
clothing" as an interrogation technique in the fall of 2003, just as the Abu Ghraib abuses were
takin lace. While not included in the SMU TF interrogation SOP, the SMU TF Commander
stated that when he took command in October 2003 he "discovered
that some ofthe detainees were not allowed clothes" as an interrogation technique_

1628

Statement ofMP soldier (January 17,2004).

1629

Statement ofMP soldier (January 14, 2004).

1630

Statement ofM! soldier (January 21,2004).

1631

Statement of 302.... M! BN soldier (May 11, 2004).

1631

Ibid

1633

Statement ofM! soldier (June 4,2004).

1634

Statement of interrogator (June 4, 2004).

1635

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002).

1636

Fay Report at 88; Church Report at 7

211

2003 or January 2004.

said he tenninated the practice in December

1638

(U) Though it never appeared in CITF-Ts interrogation policy, MG Fay stated in his
report that removal of clothing was "imported" to Abu Ghraib and could be "traced through
Mghanistan and GTMO.,,1639 MG Fay's report stated that removal of clothing was "used to
humiliate detainees" and said the practice "contributed to an environment that would appear to
condone dePravity and degradation rather than the humane treatment of detainees.,,1640 His
report identified several specific incidents of detainees being stripped or partially stripped at the
direction of interrogation personnel at Abu Ghraib.
(U) Statements by military police and military intelligence personnel who served at Abu
Ghraib indicated that removal of clothing was widely used for interrogations. COL Jerry
Philabaum, the Commander ofthe 320th MP BN at the facility, recalled seeing "between 12-15
detainees naked in their own individual cells.,,1641 He said that when he raised the issue with the
JIDC Commander, LTC Steven Jordan, he was told it "was nonnal practice for detainees to be
naked in their cells, but that usually they didn't have that many naked and that it was a technique
[military intelligence] used.,,1642 CPT Donald Reese, the Commander ofthe 37200 MP Company,
stated that LTC Jordan also told him that stripping detainees was "an interrogation method that
we use.,,1643 CPT Reese said the fact that detainees were naked as an interrogation method was
"known by everybody" and stated that it was "common practice to walk the tier and see
detainees without clothing and bedding."I644
(U) Similarly, an intelligence analyst at Abu Ghraib stated that it was "common that the
detainees on [military intelligence] hold in the hard site were initially kept naked and given
clothing as an incentive to cooperate with US.,,1645 One interrogator stated that "it was practice,
especially for [military intelligence] holds to take their clothes in a possible attempt to renew the
'capture shock' of detainees who had been in custody for an extended period oftime or were
transferred from other facilities. ,,1646 Another interrogator said that "it was common to see

1637

Questionnaire (June 29 2004) at 3.

1638

Ibid

1639

Fay Report at 87.

1640

Ibid at 70.

1641

Statement of Commander 320th MP BN (May 26, 2004).

1642

Ibid

1643 Statement of 372"" MP Company Commander (May 3, 2004); Interview of 372"" MP Company Commander
(February 10, 2004) at 48.

Interview of372"" MP Company Commander (February 10, 2004) at 48-49; Statement of 372Dd MP Company
Commander (February 21,2004); Statement of 372"" MP Company Commander (January 18, 2(04) at 1-2.

1644

164'

Statement of Intelligence Analyst (May 25, 2004).

1646

Statement of MI soldier (June IS, 2004).

212

detainees in cells without clothes or naked" and said that it was "one of our approaches.,,1647 The
interrogator said that "any officer who would walk the area at night should have seen the
detainees naked.,,1648

(U) One military police (MP) soldier stated that MI "would tell us to take away [the
detainees'! mattresses, sheets, and clothes" and that ''the detainees would sleep in their cells
naked."I64 Another MP stated that MI used "clothing removal as an interrogation technique in
Tier lA,,1650 Major Michael Sheridan, who was Executive Officer ofthe 320th MP Battalion at
Abu Ghraib, said that he stopped permitting MPs to escort detainees to interrogations after an
incident where a male detainee "was being interrogated naked and then my MPs had to escort
him back to his cell in 45 degree temps with nothing but a bag over his head, and one ofthe MPs
was female.,,1651
(U) One Abu Ghraib interrogator stated that another interrogator who was deployed from
GTMO to Abu Ghraib, told him that he "was Eermitted as the interrogator to strip a detainee
completely naked in the interrogation booth." 652 Another GTMO interrogator deplored to Abu
Ghraib said that he oversaw the interrogation of a detainee who had been stripped. 165 The
interrogator said that the technique was approved by a superior officer. 1654 A third interrogator
who had previously served at GTMO recalled asking an MP at Abu Ghraib ''to strip [a detainee]
naked for us for the interrogation.,,165S

Sleep Adjustment!Sleep Management (U)

(U) On December 2,2002, the Secretary of Defense authorized the use of20 hour
16S6
interrogations at GTMO.

IIA

January 24,2003 memo from the CITF-180 Deputy SJA stated that "sleep
adjustment," which the memo described as "generally 4 hours of sleep per every 24 hours," was
used as an interrogation technique in Mghanistan. 16S7 The SMU TF interrogation policy for Iraq
listed "sleep management" as an authorized technique and described the technique as "four hours
1647 Unsigned interrogator statement (May 13. 2004). The statement was contained in a memorandum for the record
which the interrogator declined to sign based on advice from counsel.

1648

Ibid

1649

Taguba Report at 19; Article 32 Transcript U.S. v Davis (April 7. 2004) at 11.

16~

Statement of MP soldier (June 6, 2004)

1651

Interview ofMajor Michael Sheridan (February 14. 2004) at 8.

1652

Statement of M! soldier (May 25. 2004).

Statement ofM! soldier (June 4, 2004).
1654 Ibid
1653

1655

Statement of M! soldier (July 20. 2004).

1656

Secretary of Defense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

1657 Memo

from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at

4.9.

213

of sleep during [a] 24 hour period" - the same way that CITF-180 had described "sleep
,,'In Afi'nl.'
'
ad~ustment
O',amstan. 1658
(U) The September 14, 2003 CITF-7 policy authorized both sleep management and sleep
adjustment for interrogations, defining the former as "adjusting the sleep times of a detainee"
and the latter as "4 hours of sleep per 24 hour period,,1659 CPT Wood's October 9,2003 IROE
also listed both "sleep adjustment" and "sleep management" as approved techniques. 1660 CITF7's October 12, 2003 policy did not include either sleep adjustment or sleep management as
authorized interrogation techniques. 1661 However, an October 16, 2003 IROE written by CPT
Wood continued to list both techniques, saying that their use "must be approved by the
[Commanding General], CITF-7 prior to employment.,,1662
(U) MG Fay's report stated that the "'sleep adjustment' technique was used by [military
1663
Interviews of MI and MP
intelligence] as soon as the Tier 1A block opened" at Abu Ghraib.
soldiers, however, indicated a lack of clarity among MI and MP as to what "sleep adjustment,"
"sleep management," and "sleep deprivation" actually meant. In any case, MPs were integral to
carrying out each of those techniques for MI personnel.
(U) One contract interrogator stated that "During a typical SMMP [sleep and meal
management program], the MPs are responsible for administering the written program provided
by the interrogator. '. In addition, the MPs are advised that during the awake time period of an
approved SMMS program, the MPs are allowed to do what is necessary to keep the detainee
awake in the allotted period oftime as long as it adheres to approved rules of engagement and
proper treatment of detainee.,,1664 An MI non-commissioned officer stated that he provided sleep
adjustment schedules included in interrogation plans written by interrogators he was supervising
. to the MP Sergeant ofthe Guard. 1665 Similarly, an intelligence analyst said that the process for
using sleep management was "for the interrogator to request it in writing and submit the request
with the interrogation plan... Once it was approved, a memo was given to the MPs showing the
schedule,,,1666
(U) COL Jerry Phi1abaum, the Commander ofthe 320lh MP BN, said that "When
[military intelligence] wanted a detainee on sleep deprivation, they would tell the MP guard that
prisoner 'X' was on sleep deprivation. They would give instructions that the detainee was to
16'8 _Memorandum for a 1 1 _ Personnel, SUBJECT: Policy No. I - Battlefield Interrogation Team and
facility (BIT/F) Policy (July 15, 2003).
16'9

CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2(03).

1660

CJ]'F-7 Inte"ogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9, 2(03).

1661

CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003).

1662

CJ]'F-7 Inte"ogation Rules ofEngagement (October 16, 2003).

1663

Fay Report at 70.

1664

Interview of contract interrogator (June 22, 2004).

166'

Statement of non-commissioned officer (June 4, 2004).

1666

Statement of Intelligence Analyst (May 25, 2004).

214

sleep four hours within a 24 hour period... I don't believe MPs were given specific instructions
on how to keep the detainees awake. It was left to the MPS.,,1667 Another MP Officer stated that:
When MI needed our assistance with detainees, they did their request through
memorandums. The memorandums would dictate what MI wanted. The
memorandums were signed by COL Pappas and given to the NCOlC [NonCommissioned Officer in Charge] of the wing. The memorandums would give
instructions on diet patterns, sleep patterns, music playing, and various other
techniques that Ml requested the MPs to carry out. 1668
An MP non-commissioned officer stated that "there was no SOP for sleep
management.,,1669 MG Fay stated that techniques used by MPs to keep detainees awake included
stripping them and giving them cold showers.,,1670
(U) CPT Wood said that "sleep management was approved by the [Commanding
General] about a dozen times" during her time at Abu Ghraib. 1671 She stated that she
"personally remember[ed] seeing LTG Sanchez's signature on some approvals for sleep
management.,,1672 COL Pappas said that he believed the October 12, 2003 CJTF-7 policy gave
him the authority to authorize sleep management. 1673

IIA December 14,2003 memo for LTG Sanchez signed by COL Pappas approved
"sleep management" for three detainees captured in conjunction with Saddam Hussein. 1674 COL
Pappas stated that he "couldn't say for sure" whether he actually sent the memo to LTG Sanchez
but that he "signed it with the intent ofit going to him.,,1675 LTG Sanchez said that, other than
requests to approve segregation in excess of30 days, he did "not recall signing any other
memos" approving other interrogation techniques. 1676

Sensory Deprivation and Isolation (U)

(U) "Deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli" was authorized by the Secretary of
Defense for use at GTMO on December 2, 2002. 1677

1667

Statement of COL Jerry Philabaum (May 26, 2004).

1668

Interview ofMP officer (February 10, 2004).

1669

Article 32 Transcript U.S. v Davis (April 7, 2004) at 14.

1670

Fay Report at 70.

1672

Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 6.
Ibid

1673

Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007).

1671

1674 Memorandum from COL Thomas Pappas for LTG Ricardo Sanchez, Exception to ClTF-7 Inte"ogation and
Counter Resistance Policy (December 14, 2003).

167~ Statement of COL Thomas Pappas (January 25,2006) at 9.
1676

Statement of LTG Ricardo Sanchez (November 23,2(04) at 6.

1677

Secretary ofDefense Approval of COWlter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002).

215

_
A January 24,2003 memo from the CITF-180 Deputy SJA stated that
"deprivation oflight and sound in the living areas" had been utilized and recommended that ''use
of light and noise deprivation" (not limited to living areas) be approved for imf,lementation. 1678
The technique was subsequently considered available for use in Mghanistan. l 79
(U) Sensory deprivation was never listed in CITF-7 policy as an approved technique. It
was listed, however, as an approved technique in an October 9, 2003 interrogation rules of
engagement (IROE) document for interrogators at Abu Ghraib. 1680 A subsequent IROE also
listed the technique but said its use "must be approved by the [Commanding General], CITF-7
prior to employment.,,1681
(U) Major General Fay's report identified several specific instances where detainees at
Abu Ghraib were placed in a small room in Tier lA of Abu Ghraib that was referred to as "the
hole" and where they were subject to total isolation and light deprivation. 1682 The report said
that conditions for isolating detainees "sometimes included being kept naked in very hot or very
cold, small rooms, and/or completely darkened rooms, clearly in violation ofthe Geneva
Conventions.,,1683
(U) MG Fay stated that the "environment created at Abu Ghraib contributed to the
occurrence" of detainee abuse there. 1684 But MG Fay was not the first to note the environment at
Abu Ghraib as problematic. An assessment of Abu Ghraib by a retired Army Colonel Stuart
Herrington in late 2003 had referred to Abu Ghraib as a "pressure cooker" and cited an urgent
need to improve conditions at the facility. 1685
F.

"Lost Opportunity" to Fix Problems at Abu Ghraib

(U_
1.

Retired Army Intelligence OffICei' Leads Assessment Team (U)

In November 2003, Terry Ford, the Army Assistant Chief of Stafffor
Intelligence (G-2) and BG Barbara Fast, the CJTF-7 Director for Intelligence, commissioned

1678 Memo from LIC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at
4,9.
1679

Church Report at 7.

1680

CJTF-7 Inte"ogation Rules ofEngagement (October 9, 2003).

1681

CJTF.7 Inte"ogation Rules ofEngagement (October 16, 2003).

1682

Fay Report at 94.

1683

Ibid at 28.

1684

Ibid at 9.

168~ Herririgton to Fast, Report ofCI/HUMlNT Evaluation Visit (December 12, 2003) at 2.

216

retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington to assess U.S. intelligence operations in Iraq.I686 COL
Herrington had also assessed intelligence operations at Guantanamo Bay in March 2002. 1687
Shortly before leaving for Iraq, COL Herrington received a call f r o m _
the fonner Chief ofthe Iraq Survey Group's Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center
(JIDC).
told COL Herrington of his concern that detainees had been ''tortured an'd
beat~cy guys" and SMU TF personnel in Iraq. 1688 COL Herrington decided to look
into _
claims during his assessment visit.

Assessment Team VISits Abu Ghraib and CJTF-7 Headquarters (U)

(U) After arriving in Iraq, COL Herrington and his team visited the interrogation facility
at Abu Ghraib. While the team did not see evidence that detainees were being "illegally or
improperly treated" at the facility, they did note several serious deficiencies. 1689
(U) In his written report of the visit, COL Herrington cited an urgent need to improve
conditions at Abu Ghraib. 1690 He cited overpopulation ofthe facility as a problem that could
lead to further rioting and danger to U.S. personnel. He commented that the leadership at Abu
Ghraib felt the facility was a "pressure cooker" and that it was "only a matter oftime before
prisoners staged an uRrising" and that "bad things" such as "death, injury, or hostage situations"
were likely to occur. 691 COL Herrington also assessed that shortages of interro~ators and
equipment had resulted in a failure to interrogate detainees of intelligence value. 692 He
concluded that Abu Ghraib was simply ''unsuitable for the exploitation of high value
detainees.,,1693
(U) COL Herrington also expressed concern with the practice of not assigning Internment
Serial Numbers (ISNs) to certain detainees. He wrote in his assessment report that the creation
of"ghost" detainees who were not in the accounting system carried certain risks "not the least of
which is that it may be technically illegal.,,1694
(U) On December 9,2003, COL Herrington met with MG Barbara Fast, CJTF-7's
Director for Intelligence (CJ_2).1695 He later described her as "astonished" by his observations of
1686

Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Detainee Abuse Evaluation Memorandum for the Record,

October 20, 2004 meeting with Col (Ret) Stuart A. Herrington (undated) at 1 (hereinafter DoD!G, Herrington
Interview).
1687

See Section IF, supra.

1688

DoD !G, Herrington Interview at 1.

1689

Herrington to Fast, Report ofCIIHUMINT Evaluation Visit (December 12, 2003) at 3.

1690

Ibid

1691

Ibid

1692

Ibid at 8.

1693

Ibid at 2-3.

1694

Ibid at 4.

1695

Army !G, Interview of COL (Ret) Stuart Herrington (November 3, 2004) at 17; DoD !G, Herrington Interview.

217

Abu Ghraib. 1696 He said that "in a couple of cases she said, 'I was unaware ofthat. I didn't
know that' or 'I thought we fixed that. ",1697 COL Herrington added that, "It was very evident to
me that she was not being well informed" by her staff. 1698

Team Hears Reports ofDetainee Mistreatment (U)

(U) While visiting the Iraq Survey Group facility, COL Herrington learned from ISG
medical personnel that prisoners arriving at the ISG who had been captured by the SMU TF
showed signs of"having been beaten" by t ~The report was consistent with what
the former ISG JIDC Chief, prior to
the retired Army Colonel had been told by _
his visit. When, during his visit, COL Herrington asked the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) ofthe JIDC
whether these problems had been reported to higher authority, the OIC advised him that
"everyone knows about it.,,1700
(U) COL Herrington wrote in his report that an OGA representative told him that OGA

personnel had been instructed not to have any involvement with interrogation operations at the
SMU TF as the "practices there were in contravention to his Agency's guidance on what was and
what was not permissible in interrogating detainees.,,1701 He added that he had been told by his
CITF-7 escort that it would be "difficult, ifnot impossible" to visit the SMU TF facilities. His
written report stated that:
Based on 1) What my s o u r c e _ told me' before I deployed about what he
observed concerning mistreatment; 2) The statement of the ISG-JIDC OIC on the
same subject; and 3) the OGA representative's statement, it seems clear that [the
SMU TF] needs to be reined in with respect to its treatment of detainees. 1702

COL Herrington Reports Findings (U)

(U) When COL Herrington returned to the U. S. and briefed LTG Keith Alexander, the

Army G2, and his deputy Terry Ford, he reiterated the concerns about what he had seen in Iraq
and stated, "when it becomes known, everybody who touched it will be in trouble.,,1703 COL
Herrington later told the DoD IG that the two were "very supportive and expressed confidence in
his assessment, but no official'follow-ups were discussed or scheduled at that time.,,1704

1696

Army IG, Interview of COL (Ret) Stuart Herrington (November 3, 2004) at 17.

1697

Ibid

1698

Ibid at 16.

1699 Herrington

to Fast, Report ojCI/HUMINT Evaluation Visit (December 12, 2003) at 7.

1700 Herrington

to Fast, Report ojCI/HUMINT Evaluation Visit (December 12, 2003) at 7.

1701

Ibid.

1702

Ibid

1703

DoD IG, Herrington Interview at 3.

1704

Ibid. at 4.

218

(U) COL Herrington told the DoD IGthat he expected that CITF-7 and the Army G2
would investigate the issues he raised. 1705 However, he said they never contacted him and he
was notified by CITF-7 in April of2004 that there had been "insufficient evidence to
substantiate" what he had heard from the former ISG nDC Chief about detainee mistreatment in
Iraq.1706 The Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate at CITF-7 stated in an April 7, 2004 letter to
COL Herrington that the investigating officer had not been able to "recreate those conversations
upon which [COL Herrington'sJ report was based" and that it had been difficult to "pin down
timelines and events in time.,,17 7
(U) The allegations raised by COL Herrington were the subject of an investigation
conducted by CITF-7 in early 2004. In what VADM Church described as an "extremely brief,
three-page report," the CITF-7 investigating officer found no proofto substantiate the allegations
against the SMU TF. 1708 VADM Church criticized the CITF-7 r~ort as "extremely brief and
cursory" with "obvious gaps in the investigation methodology."no VADM Church called the
failure to more thoroughly invest~ate the allegations a "lost opportunity to address potential
detainee abuse in Iraq early on.,,1 0

XIV.

Interrogation Policies Following Abu Ghraib (U)

_
While CENTCOM legal concerns had led to CITF-Ts removal of most ofthe
aggressive interrogation techniques from its interrogation policy in October 2003, interrogation
policies issued by Task Forces under CENTCOM Command, inchidingthe Combined Joint
Special Operations Task Force Arabian Peninsula (CJSOTF-AP), CJTF-180 (the conventional
forces in Afghanistan), and the Special Mission Units in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to
include aggressive interrogation techniques well into 2004.

February 2004 CJSOTF Interrogation SOP (U)

_
The Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Arabian Peninsula (CJSOTFAP) operated under the tactical command ofCITF-7. CJSOTF-AP contained units from the 5th

1'105

Ibid

1i06

Ibid.

1'107 Letter

-- -

---

- - -

from Office of the Staff Judge Advocate to COL Stuart Herrington (April 7, 2004).

1708

Church Report at 61.

1709

Ibid.

1710

Ibid

1711 AR-lS-6 Investigation ofCJSOTF-AP and Sth SF Group Detention Operations (November 8, 2004) at 13, IS, 71
(hereinafter "Formica Report').

219

That policy had been
superseded by an October 12,2003 policy that was issued after CENTCOM raised legal
concerns with techniques in the earlier policy.I714

.On

Febrn
Commander,
issued
an interrogation policy for
using the September 14,2003 CJTF-7 policy as its basis
and authorizing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, including the presence of military
working dogs, stress positions, sleep management, loud music, and light control, and
environmental manipulation. 1715 The policy stated that certain techniques, such as presence of
military working dogs, stress positions, and loud music and light control, required approval by
the CJTF-7 Commander ifthey were to be used against enemy prisoners of war. The use of
those techniques against all other detainees, however, was permitted with the written approval of
a
Deputy Commander or Commander.

completed by Brigadier General Richard Formica stated that
_
"some detainees were wet down and laced in air conditioned room or outside in cold
weather.,,1718

_
The March 23, 2004 policy stated that "you should consider the fact that some
interrogation techniques are viewed as inhumane or otherwise inconsistent with intemationallaw

1712

Statement of COL Hector Pagan (August 2, 2004).

1713

Statement of LTC Michael Black (November 3,2004).

1714

See Section XU E, supra.

1713

_Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (February 27, 2004) at 2-3.

1716 _

Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (March 23, 2004) at 3.

1717

Ibid.

1718

Formica Report at 71.

1719 _

Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (March 23, 2004) at 4.

220

before applying each technique. These techniques are labeled with a [CAUTION].,,1720
Environmental manipulation, the use of power tools, stress positions, and the presence of
working dogs were all marked with the word "CAUTION."I721

BG
Formica also found that some detainees held by a tactical unit were "kept naked for the initial
interrogation" and fed only bread or crackers and water "ifthey did not cooperate with ...
interrogators.,,1723 He said that a detainee held by another tactical unit under CJSOTF-AP
command "may have been fed just bread and water for 17 days.,,1724
B.

Interrogation Plan in Iraq Derivedfrom SERE (U)

11_ The Department of Defense provided the Committee an undated document
drafted by a Chief Warrant Officer from the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. The 25th
Infantry Division was deployed to Iraq and stationed outside Kirkuk from January 2004 through
February 2005. The document, called "Camp Honesty Interrogation Plan" stated that it was
"based off of U.S. SERE Training Doctrine.',I72S It described subjecting detainees to "sensory
over-stimulation" where they would be placed, handcuffed behind their backs in so-called "black
room[s].,,1726 The plan stated that two soldiers with night vision goggles would be present in the
room and would "touch [the] detainee on [the] head, hands and feet with string simulating
sensors.,,1727 In addition, sound would be used to "activate and confuse auditory sensors"
resuhing in "heart-rate increase and increased stress leve1s.',1728

March 2004 Interrogation SOPfor Conventional Forces in Afghanistan (U)

_
The interrogation policy in place for CJTF-180, the conventional forces in
Afghanistan, also continued to include aggressive interrogation techniques well into 2004. A
March 27,2004 CJTF-180 Standard Operating Procedure, signed by LTC Charles Pede, the Staff
Judge Advocate, LTC Scott Berrier, the Director of Intelligence, and LTC Clayton Cobb, the MP
Commander for CJTF-180 included a list of "standard [tactics, techniques, and procedures for

1720

Ibid at 6.

1721

Ibid at 4.

1721

Formica Report at 8.

17Z3

Ibid. at 74.

1714

Ibid at 8.

172~ .THT 160 _ . Camp Honesty Interrogation Plan (undated).
1726

Ibid

1727

Ibid.

1728

Ibid.

221

use" at Bagram. I729 That list included the use of "safety positions," "sleep adjustment," "sensory
overload," invading a detainee's personal space to "increase psychological discomfort," "dietary
manipulation," adjusting temperature or introducing an unpleasant smell to "create moderate
discomfort," and using blacked out goggles as an interrogation technique. 1730

Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Polices (U)

Prior to March 2004, however, each operated under a distinct interrogation SOP. On March 26,
2004 the SMU TF implemented a single interrogation policy that covered SMU TF operations in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. 1731
_
The March 26,2004 SMU SOP authorized 14 "interrogation techniques" not
explicitly listed in FM 34-52, including use of muzzled dogs, "safety positions (during
interrogations)," sleep adjustment/management, mild physical contact, isolation, sensory
overload, sensory deprivation, and dietary manipulation. 1732
_
According to the Church Special Focus Team Report, the March 26, 2004 SMU
TF SOP included a larger number of interrogation techniques outside ofFM 34-52 than the SOPs
of any other military organization at the time. 1733 In fact, many ofthe techniques in that SOP had
been abandoned by conventional forces in Afghanistan months earlier, after CENTCOM
identified legal concerns with the techniques. 1734 Although the authority in the March SOP to
use "muzzled dogs" was rescinded on April 22, 2004, the remainder ofthe techniques remained
authorized until May 6, 2004, when GEN John Abizaid, the CENTCOM Commander, suspended
use of all non-FM 34-52 techniques. 1735 The Church Special Focus Team report said the
techniques were suspended as a result of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. 1736 GEN Abizaid stated

cm-180 SJA Memorandum for Record, CTJ'F-180 Detainee Operations Standard Operating Procedures
(March 27, 2004).
1730 Ibid
172S1

1731

Church Special Focus Team Report at 15.

173~ The 14 techniques were the use of military working dogs, safety positions·(during interrogations), use of
blackened goggles/ear muffs during interrogation, sleep adjustment/sleep management, use of female interrogators,
sensory deprivation, sensory overload, change of environment/ environmental manipulation, diet manipulation, use
of falsified documents or reports and deception, use of individual fears, use of isolation, fear of long-term
incarceration, and mild physical contact. Battlefield Interrogation Team and Temporary Screening Facility Standing
Operating Procedures (SOP), Change 2 Dated May 18, 2004.
1733

Church Special Focus Team Report at 15.

1734

Ibid

173~ Ibid at 16; Memorandum from SMU TF Commanding General to USCENTCOM,
Request
for Use ofInterrogation Techniques (May 27, 2004); CENTCOMISOCOM Briefing to Committee Staff (December
21,2007).
1736

Church Special Focus Team Report at 16.

222

that neither he nor his staff "reviewed or approved" the March 2004 SMU TF SOP "prior to its
issuance.,,1737
_
Several interrogation techniques authorized for use by the SMU Task Force prior
to GEN Abizaid's suspension, including stress positions, sleep adjustment/management, sensory
overload, and sensory deprivation were similar to techniques used in the resistance phase of
SERE training. In fact, undated SMU TF SOPs from this period suggest a connection between
SMU TF interrogation techniques and SERE. The SOPs state, under interrogation "Standards,"
that "[i]nterrogations will be done [in accordance with] all applicable rules and regulations to
include... SurvivallEvasioniResistance/and Escape regulations. ,,1738

wrote that detainees held by his TF were "hardened" and "trained to
resist interrogation" and added:

SLEEP MANAGEMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION (LIGHT AND NOISE), EXTENDED
INTERROGATIONS, VARYING COMFORT POSITIONS AND THE USE OF
HOODS TO INDUCE A PSYCHOLOGICAL SENSE OF ISOLATION AND
DEPENDENCE ON THE INTERROGATORS ARE PARTICULARLY
USEFUL. 1740
told

that he planned to request "authority to employ" additional

_ _ On May 27, 2004,
formally requested that CENTCOM
grant authority to the SMU TF to use five interrogation techniques: sleep management, control
positions, environmental manipulation, separation, and change of scenery. 1742 The request .
1737 Memorandum from General John Abizaid, Responses to Request for Information from VADM Church (August
6,2004).

17Js"

See Department of Defense Headquarters, Joint Task Force 121 (JTF-12l), Baghdad Air Base, Iraq
CJTF-121 Battlefield Interrogation facilityrrearn Standard Operating Procedures.

17J9

Message from Commander_to Commander

2004) at 1.
1740

Ibid (emphasis in original).

1741

Ibid. at 1.

223

DTG 231006Z MAY 04 (May 23,

stated that control positions - defmed as "requiring the detainee to stand, sit, kneel, squat,
maintain sitting position with back against the wall, bend over chair, lean with head against wall,
lie prone across chairs, stand with arms above head or raised to shoulders, or other nonnal
physical training positions" - could also "be used in order to implement sleep management" and
that "in the most exceptional circumstances, and on approval from [the SMU TF Commander],"
interrogators could ''use handcuffs to enforce the detainee's position.,,1743 An interrogator could
require a detainee to remain in a control position for "no more than 45 minutes in one hour and
for no more than six hours in a 24 hour period.,,1744
(U) Notwithstanding the May 6, 2004 suspension of all non-FM 34-52 techniques, on
June 4, 2004, GEN Abizaid approved the use of sle~ management, environmental manipulation,
separation, and change of scenery for the SMU TF. 1 45 He delegated the approval authority for
the use of those techniques to the "fIrst general officer in the chain of command," and specifIed
that none of the techniques could be used beyond a 72 hour period "without a review by [the
SMU TF Commander] or the fIrst general officer in the chain ofcommand.,,1746

xv.

CENTCOM Seeks JPRA Interrogation Assistance in Afghanistan (U)
A.

May 2004 CENTCOM Request (U)

(U) In the wake ofthe detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency
(JPRA) personnel traveled to CENTCOM headquarters to coordinate a plan to send a training
team to assist CENTCOM with interrogations in Afghanistan.

• According to Christopher Witts, the Chief of JPRA's Operational Support Office
(OSO) the meeting at CENTCOM took place after the mission to Afghanistan had been
"tentativelyapproved.,,1747 On May 12,2004 CENTCOM made a formal request through the
Joint Staff for JPRA "interrogation! exploitation" assistance.
• In the May 12,2004 request, CENTCOM asked that JFCOM provide a Joint
Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) team to "conduct an on-site assessment of [Bagram
Collection Point] operations in Bagram and Kandahar to assist in the development and

Request/or Use a/Interrogation Techniques (May 27,2004).
1743

Ibid

1744

Ibid

1 7 4 5 _ Church Special Focus Team Report at 16. Although the request dermed "separation" to include the use of
goggles, earmuffs, and hooding, the CENTCOM Cornman
'use of hooding."
Memorandum from General 10hn Abizaid to Commander,
Request/or Use
a/Interrogation Techniques, Dated 27 May 2004 (June 4,2004).
1746 Ibid

1747.Email from ChristopherWirts to Thomas Markland, 10hnHuffstutter, David Ellis (January 19,2005). Mr.
Wirts's email stated "Initially when the mission was tentatively approved we went to HQ CENTCOM and
reviewedlbriefed the 12X on how we intended to support. They were satisfied with our methods and intent. After
the CENTCOM visit, we were called to JFCOM and met with ADM [Giambastiani], Gen Soligan, Gen Wagner,
JFCOM Legal and a host of other personnel. In the days following the meeting, the mission was turned off. "

224

implementation of an indoctrination program and other interrogation / exploitation options.,,1748
The CENTCOM request stated that the JPRA team would "... observe exploitation procedures
at the site to assist in identifying improvements or development of alternate approaches to meet
· · 0 b'~ectlves.
.
,,1749
expIOltatlon
_That same day, JPRA personnel briefed JFCOM Deputy Commander LTG Wagner,
JFCOM Chief of Staff Maj Gen James Soligan, and JFCOM Commander ADM Giambastiani,
about the planned support. 1750
(U) Materials prepared for those briefm s stated that after September 11, 2001, JPRA
[Defense Intelligence Agency],"
was "requested to support
GTMO, Fort Huachuca, and
,,1751

11I_

The briefmg materials specifically highlighted JPRA's September 2003 trip
to Iraq in support ofthe Special Mission Unit Task Force there and described JPRA's intended
support for CENTCOM in Afghanistan. 1752 Among JPRA's "key tasks" for the planned
Afghanistan trip was to observe "exploitation procedures" used by CENTCOM personnel and to
"identifY areas for improvement" and "assist and advise on alternate approaches.,,1753 The
briefing materials stated that JPRA intended to provide "on the spot recommendations to the
[CENTCOM] staffif appropriate" on these alternate approaches. 17S4
. ( _ The briefing materia~s also included a proposed Concept of Operations
(CONOP) for the Afghanistan trip. 1755 The proposed CONOP was similar in scope and structure
to the CONOP JPRA had circulated in September 2003, near the end ofthe Iraq trip. Unlike the
Iraq CONOP, however, the Afghanistan CONOP included many ofthe edits that had been
suggested by CAPT Daniel Donovan, the JFCOM SJA (e.g., clarifying that Rules of Engagement
must be within U.S. law and policy including - but not simply limited to - the Torture
Convention, removing reference to "constant sensory deprivation," etc.. The Af:
'stan
CONOP did not, however, reflect all ofthe SJA's edits. For example,
1748 Message
1749

from CENTCOM, Request for USJFCOM Support, DTG: 121729Z May 04 (May 12, 2004).

Ibid.

1750 Email from Randy Moulton to Steven Johns and Fred Milburn (May 10, 2004); Committee staff interview of
Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2007)

1m Email from Randy Moulton to~, James Soligan. Robert Wagner, Fred Milburn, et aI., attaching
Briefing Slides and Executive Summ~ CONOP; Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January
4,2007).
As part of the briefmg materials, an executive summary of the September 2003 trip identified the JPRAidentified deficiencies as the SMU TF's "lack of clear legal guidance on status of captured personnel," "lack of
established [Rules of E.ment or Standard Operating Procedure]," "lack of training and preparation," and "lack
of information sharing."
See Executive Summary, see also Briefing Slides at 5-8.
1752

1753

Briefing slides at 6-8.

1754

Ibid

1755 Several drafts of a Concept of Operations (CONOP) for the planned trip by JPRA personnel to Afghanistan were
provided to the Committee. While those drafts are not dated, communications between and/or among JPRA and
JFCOM personnel discussing revisions to the drafts suggest when those drafts were produced and how the CONOP
evolved

225

CAPT Donovan had recommended removing these techniques from the Iraq

liThe

reference to JPRA's prior interrogation support in the briefing materials
prompted a discussion among ADM Giambastiani, LTG Wagner, Maj Gen Soligan and CAPT
Donovan about the September 2003 trip to Iraq and the CONOP that was created during that trip.
Col Moulton, the JPRA Commander, had earlier defended the inclusion
ofthe full range of SERE techniques in the Iraq CONOP by saying that "all the techniques
discussed [in the CONOP] are ones that [JPRA] (or other services) employ in our training (with
considerable oversight - only the Navy uses the waterboard)." He continued: "In discussions
with [the Office of Secretary of Defense General Counsel] last year, they specifically requested
what type of techniques we found most effective against our personnel. Our intent is to provide
a prioritized list of what works on our folks, and let the lawyers and Combatant Commanders
decide to what degree and which target audience they apply these, if any, techniques. ,,1758
• _
During consideration ofthe Mghanistan trip, CAPT Donovan forwarded Col
Moulton's email to ADM Giambastiani, LTG Wagner, and Maj Gen Soligan and wrote:
When [Col Mouhon] says that the Navy uses [waterboarding], he means that they
use it against our own people during survival, evasion, resistance and escape
(SERE) training. In other words, qualified Navy SERE instructors use this to
demonstrate to our own people what the. ENEMY is likely to do to them in the
even they are captured, and (hopefully) to train our people how to resist or cope
with such techniques.
JPRA and SERE folks will swear that the "water board" does not actually
physically harm subjects if it is administered by properly trained SERE
instructors, under close supervision, etc. For that reason, some argue that the
17'6 Ibid

1757.Shortly after the briefing. a JFCOM action officer sent JPRA leadership a list of action items for LTG
Soligan. Among those were JPRA (1) locating the after action report from JPRA's support to
• and (2) preparing a message to the Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "to provide policy/guidance on
possibility of extending JPRA roles/responsibilities to the offensive vice defensive preparations/practices." In
response, Col. Moulton told the JFCOM action officer that "[t]here was no [after action report] for t h e "
support" and instead directed him to the "executive summary" of the trip provided in the briefing materials. Col.
Moulton also stated that it was JPRA's understanding that "[Admiral Giambastiani] would approve our participation
[in the Afghanistan trip] with a [Voice Command] from the Joint Staff regardless of the status of the policy guidance
(he has previously approved and we are currently supporting other 'offensive' efforts)." Email from Randy Moulton
to Steven Johns, Fred Milburn, Christopher Wirts, and Dan Donovan (May 13, 2004).
W~er and MG

ms Email from Col. Randy Moulton to Maj Gen James Soligan, CAPT Dan Donovan, RADM John Bird, LTG
Robert Wagner et al. (September 30, 2003).

226

"water board" does not technically constitute torture under domestic or
international law. I can only say that in my opinion, that argument does not pass
the "Washington Post test." I fail to see how anyone can reasonably say that
employing such techniques against those in our custody is worthy of the United
States, no matter how much we may need the information. In my view, for the
U. S. to do this "lowers the bar" and ensures, if there is any doubt, that similar
techniques will be employed against any US personnel captured by our enemies.
For this reason, there is risk involved in having JPRA "advise" interrogators in
CENTCOM - JPRA's expertise concerns the effective techniques used by the
BAD GUYS against us, and I frankly don't believe that's the kind of advice we
should be giving to the U.S. side. I see great potential for theater personnel to do
it wrong, and to then say, "well JPRA said this was what we should do.,,1759
On May 13, 2004, the day after Col Moulton briefed the JFCOM leadership,
he circulated a revised CONOP for the Mghanistan trip. The revised CONOP stated that IPRA
would "not recommend or train physical pressures," however, it also stated that a "key task" of
the mission was to observe "exploitation procedures at the site to assist in identifyin~
improvements" and develop "alternate approaches to meet exploitation objectives.,,1 60 CAPT
Donovan immediately expressed his concern with that "key task" in an email to ADM
Giambastiani and LTG Wagner, stating:
I [am] concerned about JPRA "identifying alternate approaches to meet
exploitation objectives" (read: more effective interrogation methods). Since
JPRA's expertise is all the unlawful interrogation techniques the enemy uses
against captured US forces, I recommend you consider NOT having JPRA get
involved in this aspect of CENTCOM's request. 1761
_ CAPT Donovan also expressed his concerns about the intended mission to Col
Moulton, writing in a May 13, 2004 email:
[I]t is not advisable to have JPRA assist in "improving exploitation" (i.e.,
suggesting more effective interrogation techniques). JPRA's core expertise is in
training DoD personnel to resist!cope with techniques - many of them illegal that may be employed by our enemies if DoD personnel are captured. It just
doesn't make sense to me to have experts in what the "bad guys" do to us
advising our U.S. interrogators - there is a real risk, if theater interrogators then
'do it wrong," for them to claim "JPRA's experts recommended this."

175~mail from CAPT Dan Donovan to ADM Edmund Giambastiani, LTG Robert Wagner and Maj Gen James
Soligan (May 13, 2004) (emphasis in original).

1760.

Draft Concept of Operations in Support of Pending CENTCOM Joint Interrogation Facility Observation and
Assessment Requirement.
1761 Email from CAPT Dan Donovan to ADM Edmund Giambastiani, LTG Robert Wagner, Maj Gen James Soligan.
(May 13, 2004) (emphasis in original).

227

Accordingly, my recommendation is that JPRA not get involved in this aspect of
the requested support. 1762

III The next day, CAPT Donovan sent another email to ADM Giambastiani, LTG
Wagner, and Maj Gen Soligan pointing out the "potential risk to the entire JPRA mission
if they are in any way implicated in the current mess in Ira~."1763 JPRA's planned May
2004 mission to Afghanistan was subsequently called off 1 64

CENTCOM Makes Another Requestfor JPRA Interrogation Assistance in
Afghanistan (U)

III On June 20, 2004, about a month after their initial request, CENTCOM made another
request to the Joint Stafffor JPRA assistance at interrogation facilities in Bagram and Kandahar
in Afghanistan. 1765 The request sought a team from JPRA to "conduct on-site assessments" in
July and to "assist the commands in ... developing and implementing an indoctrinationJrogram
and other interrogation / exploitation options, required as a result ofthe assessments.,,17
Specifically, CENTCOM requested that the JPRA team "observe exploitation procedures at the
site and identifl improvements or develop alternate approaches to meet exploitation
objectives.,,176
_
When the request arrived at JFCOM, CAPT Donovan again raised concerns with
Maj Gen Soligan about the scope ofthe request. In a June 21, 2004 email, he asked "whether
JPRA is really the appropriate choice" for the mission described in the CENTCOM request, i.e.,
to "observe exploitation procedures at the site and identify improvements or develop alternate
approaches to meet exploitation objectives.,,1768 Maj Gen Soligan subsequently raised the issue
with Maj Gen John Sattler, the CENTCOM Director of Operations (13), who Maj Gen Soligan
said told him that CENTCOM had made a "conscious decision on what capability they want.,,1769
_CAPT Donovan also raised his concerns directly with lawyers at CENTCOM and
the Joint Staff. In an email to the lawyers, he wrote:

1762 Email from CAPT Dan Donovan to Col. Randy Moulton and Col Fred Milburn (May 13, 2004).
1763 Email from CAPT Dan Donovan to Maj Gen James Soligan. copying ADM Edmund Giambastiani and LTG
Robert Wagner (May 14, 2004).
1764_According to Mr. Wirts, JPRA's OSO Chief, "[W]e went to HQ CENTCOM and reviewedlbriefed the
J2X on how we intended to support. They were satisfied with our methods and intent. After the CENTCOM visit,
we were called to JFCOMand met with [Admiral Giambastiani, Maj Gen Soligan, LTG Wagner], JFCOM Legal
and a host of other personnel. In the days following the meeting, the mission was turned off." Email from
Christopher Wirts to Lt Col Thomas Markland, copying Lt Col John Huffstutter, Col David Ellis (January 19, 2005).
1765 CENTCOM Request for USJFCOM Operational Support, DIG: 200800Z JUN 04 (June 20, 2004).
1766 Ibid
1767 Ibid

1768 Email from CAPT Dan Donovan to Maj Gen James Soligan and LTG Robert Wagner (June 21, 2004).
17651 Email from Maj Gen James Soligan to CAPT Dan Donovan (June 21, 2004).

228

I'm concerned that the folks from our Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA)who oversee training US military personnel how to resist interrogations by our
enemies (e.g., SERE training) - are the wrong guys to be advising US
interrogators how to more effectively exploit PUCs. JPRA considers themselves
to be the exploitation experts, but in many ways my view is that their expertise is
in training US personnel how to best resist ILLEGAL techniques. This kind of
advice may be the last thing you all want/need in Afghanistan right now. 1770
_
Over the next month, JFCOM senior leadership discussed the proposed trip with
JPRA and the Joint Staff. At JFCOM's request, JPRA developed and provided JFCOM with a
training plan for the mission 1771 On June 30, 2004, Maj Gen Soligan told JPRA in an email to
prepare for the trip, but directed them not to deploy until the trip was approved by JFCOM's
Commander ADM Edmund Giambastiani. 1772 JFCOM also discussed working with Joint Staff
to fmd a capability outside JPRA to send to CENTCOM to assist with their detainee operations,
but expected a "nonconcur" with any "recommendation to use other resources.,,1773

III As discussions about the CENTCOM request continued within JFCOM, Col Kenneth
Rollins, a SERE psychologist added his perspective on the advisability of sending JPRA
personnel to assist with interrogations. The psychologist said:
[W]e need to really stress the difference between what instructors do at SERE
school (done to INCREASE RESISTANCE capability in students) versus what is
taught at interrogator[] school (done to gather information). What is done by
SERE instructors is by definition ineffective interrogator conduct, and
interrogator school, not SERE school is the appropriate focus and model for
investigating interrogators. Simply stated, SERE school does not train you on
how to interrogate, and things you "learn" there by osmosis about interrogation
are probably wrong if copied by interrogators. 1774

As Col Rollins's comments were circulated at JFCOM, LtCol Richard Posey, one of
the JFCOM JAGs added that "[i]t would be difficult to come up with a stronger argument against
concurring in this request."I77S LtCol Posey added: "CENTCOM needs interrogation experts.
JPRA is telling us ... that their instructors are ineffective interrogators and probably do it wrong
because their focus is on increasing resistance not decreasing it. For the same reasons, this does
1770

Email from Dan Donovan to Joint Staff and CENTCOM lawyers (June 21, 2004) (emphasis in original).

1 7 7 1 _ The

training plan was intended to provide the JFCOM Commander an idea of how JPRA would satisfy
the request to "conduct on-site assessments" at Bagram and Kandahar and "assist the commands in . . . developing
and implementing an indoctrination program and other interrogation / exploitation options ..." Email from Maj Gen
James Soligan to Col Randy Moulton, RADM John Bird. LTG Robert Wagner (June 23,2004).
1772

Email from Maj Gen James Soligan to RADM John Bird, Col. Randy Moulton, et aI. (June 30, 2004).

Email from LtCol Richard Posey to CAPT Alan Kaufman, copying LTC John Jones, CAPT Daniel Donovan
(June 30, 2004); Email from LtCol Richard Posey to Maj Paul Voss, copying Col Fred Milburn, Lt Col Steven
Johns, CAPT Alan Kaufman, LTC John Jones (July 12, 2004).

1774 Email from LtCol Richard Posey to Maj Paul Voss, copying Col Fred Milburn, Lt Col Steven Johns, CAPT Alan
Kaufman, LTC John Jones (July 12, 2004) (emphasis in original).

1m Ibid.

229

not pass the Washington Post test. DoD already has enough egg on its face concerning detainee
operations. ,,1776
(U) The trip to Mghanistan was subsequently cancelled. Christopher Wirts, JPRA
Operations Support Office (OSO) Chief, told the Committee that although he did not know why
JFCOM cancelled the trip, he recalled discussing the negative media attention from Abu Ghraib
with LTG Wagner and Maj Gen Soligan. 1777

U.S. Joint Forces Command Issues Policy Guidance For JPRA "Offensive"
Support(U)

II In July 2004, following JFCOM's cancellation ofthe proposed trip by JPRA
personnel to Mghanistan, ADM Giambastiani issued guidance to JPRA about "offensive"
interrogation support. In a July 21, 2004 email to Col Moulton and RADM John Bird, the
JFCOM J-3, Maj Gen Soligan wrote:
ADM Giarnbastiani has given specific guidance that JPRA will not conduct any
activities on or make any recommendations on offensive interrogation techniques
or activities without specific approval from the JFCOM Commander, [Deputy
Commander, or Chief of Staff] All JPRA actions and recommendations related
to interrogations of enemy detainees will be conducted in accordance with
JPRA's current mission statement and limited to defensive actions and
recommendations. 1778
_
A few days after that email, a draft memo containing the guidance was sent to Col
Moulton. In a July 26, 2004 email to Maj Gen Soligan and RADM Bird, Col Mouhon
questioned why the policy was necessary and offered his view on JPRA's prior support to
interrogation operations:
Immediately following 9/11 JPRA was approached by~
~SD General Council [sic] (and later _ _ _ _ _
. . . . - USA strategic debriefmg school in Ft Huachuca, and ITF 170)
regarding U.S. training on resistance to interrogation techniques. All requests for
information or support were coordinated through JFCOM, and all interested
agencies were directed to make formal requests through JFCOM. All external
requests for support have been unsolicited. From the very beginning I expressed
concern that supporting these requests would go outside the JPRA charter and
provided an honest assessment of the potential risk associated with the support.
All CONOPS and actions have been fully vetted through JFCOM. If the message
is to relay that we won't play in "offensive" ops - that has been received loud and

1176 Ibid

I'm Committee staff interview Christopher Witts (January 4. 2008).
1178 Email from Maj Gen James Soligan to Col Randy Moulton. RADM John Bird. Maj Gen Jack Holbein, Col Fred
Milburn (July 21.2004).

230

clear. If the purpose is to prevent OSD/GC,. and other DoD Interroyation
organizations from making requests I'm not sure this memo is going to help. 779
(U) A formal JFCOM policy memo relating to JPRA's "offensive" support to

interrogation operations was not finalized until September 29, 2004, after the Inspector General
ofthe Department of Defense began looking into the issue. In the September 2004 memo, Maj
Gen Soligan wrote:
Recent requests from OSD and the Combatant Commands have solicited JPRA
support based on knowledge and their application to U.S. strategic debriefing and
interrogation techniques.
These requests, which can be characterized as
"offensive" techniques include, but are not limited to, activities designed not to
increase one's resistance capabilities to interrogation techniques but rather
intended to instruct personnel, for the purpose of gathering of information, on
how to break down another's ability to withstand interrogation ... The use of
resistance to interrogation knowled~e for "offensive" purposes lies outside the
roles and responsibilities of JPRA 17
(U) The policy did not, however, explicitly prohibit JPRA from conducting such
activities in all instances. Instead, it stated that all requests for "offensive" support should
"continue to" be directed through JFCOM but instructed that:

[A]ny deviation in roles and responsibilities must be carefully scrutinized and
vetted through proper legal and policy channels. JPRA personnel will not
conduct any activities without specific approval from the USJFCOM Commander,
Deputy Commander, or the Chief of Staff. Deviations from the JPRA chartered
mission of this nature are policy decisions that will be forwarded to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for action. JPRA will continue to direct all
requests for external support through USJFCOM and refrain from providing any
support or information unless specifically directed by USJFCOM as outlined
above. 1781
(U) As the Department of Defense Inspector General continued its inquiry into JPRA's
prior "offensive" interrogation su~ort, the DoD Inspector General asked JFCOM about the
September 2004 policy memo. 178 In a February 2005 memo to the DoD Inspector General,
LTG Wagner stated that the purpose ofthe September 2004 policy was to provide "clear
guidance" and to "prevent use of JPRA outside the command's mission scope.,,1783 Knowing
that CENTCOM and Joint Staffhad expressed interest in JPRA to assist or support "in-theater
1779

Email from Col Randy Moulton to Maj Gen James Soligan, RADM John Bird, Maj Gen Jack Holbein (July 26,

2004).
1780 Memo from Maj Gen James Soligan to Col Randy Moulton, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency Mission
Guidance (September 29,2004).
1781

Ibid

1782

Memorandum for the Department of Defense Inspector General, signed by LTG Robert Wagner (February 10,

2005).
1783

Ibid

231

interrogations," LTG Wagner said that JFCOM sought to clarify that "JPRA is primarily a school
house, not an intelligence gathering activity.,,1784 He added that "JPRA does not have not have
personnel assigned to be interrogators," and that ''the expertise ofIPRA lies in training personnel
how to respond and resist interrogations - not in how to conduct interrogations.,,1785
(U) According to LTG Wagner, JFCOM issued the September 2004 policy statement ''to
ensure that JPRA activities remained within the scope ofthat Agency's mission charter.,,1786 He
stated that JFCOM considered requests for JPRA "interrogator support" to be "inconsistent" with
JPRA's charter. 1787 He stated, however, that the memorandum was not "issued in response to
suspected or known inappropriate IPRA activities, as no such activities were known by this
headquarters to have been conducted.,,1788 Notwithstanding that statement, however, by
September 2004, when JFCOM issued the policy, JFCOM had already approved a trip by JPRA
personnel to Iraq as well as other "offensive" interrogation support - activities that fell outside
JPRA's roles and responsibilities.

1784

Ibid

178~

Ibid.

1786

Ibid

1787

Ibid

1788

Ibid

232

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side