" COMMITTEE PRINT ! 110TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

S. PRT. 

110–54

INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT 

OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NOVEMBER 20, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
**** GPO -- USE THIS LINE FOR BACK STRIP ****

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–761

" COMMITTEE PRINT ! 110TH CONGRESS

2nd Session 

S. PRT. 

2009

110–54

INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT 

OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NOVEMBER 20, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director 

INVESTIGATION TEAM

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) viii
 

List of Acronyms Used in the Report (U)	 ix
 

Executive Summary and Conclusions (U)	 xii
 

I.	 Early Influences on Interrogation Policy (U) 1
 

A.	 Redefining the Legal Framework For the Treatment ofDetainees (U) 1
 

B.	 Department ofDefense Office ofGeneral Counsel Seeks Information from the Joint
 

Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) (U) 3
 

C.	 JPRA Collaboration with Other Government Agencies (OGAs) (U) 6
 

D.	 JPRA Support to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) (U) 8
 

E.	 JPRA Recommendationsfor GTMO (U) 11
 

F.	 Colonel Herrington's Assessment ofGTMO (U) 12
 

G.	 JPRA Prepares Draft Exploitation Plan (U) 14
 

II.	 Development of New Interrogation Authorities (U) 16
 

A.	 CIA's Interrogation Program and the Interrogation ofAbu Zubaydah (U) 16
 

B.	 JPRA Assistance to Another Government Agency (U) 19
 

C.	 Senior SERE Psychologist Detailed From Department ofDefense to Other Government
 

Agency (U) 23
 

D.	 Department ofDefense General Counsel Seeks Information on SERE Techniques From
 

JPRA (U) 24
 

E.	 The Department ofJustice Changes the Rules (U) 31
 

F.	 JPRA 's Special Program In Support of.(U) 35
 

1.	 August 2002 Training Proposal (U) 35
 

2.	 JPRA Creates Project 22B (U) 37
 

III.	 Guantanamo Bay as a "Battle Lab" for New Interrogation Techniques (U) 38
 

A.	 GTMO Stands Up a Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) (U) 38
 

UNCLASSIFIED 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

B.	 Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) Personnel Contact the U.S. Army Special
 

Operations Command (USASOC) (U) 39
 

c.	 U.S. Southern Command Seeks External Review ofGTMO (U) .42
 

D.	 GTMO Personnel Attend Training at Fort Bragg (U) 43
 

E.	 Delegation ofSenior Government Lawyers Visits Guantanamo (U) 49
 

F.	 JTF-/70 BSCT Produces Interrogation Policy Memo (U) 50
 

G.	 CIA Lawyer Advises GTMO on Interrogations (U) 53
 

H.	 DoD Takes Lead on the Interrogation ofMohammed al Khatani (U) 57
 

IV.	 GTMO Seeks Authority to Use Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U) 61
 

A.	 GTMO Requests Counter-Resistance Techniques Influenced by SERE (U) 61
 

B.	 GTMO Staff Judge Advocate Conducts "Legal Review ofAggressive Interrogation
 

Techniques" (U) 63
 

C.	 Chain ofCommand Considers the Requestfor Interrogation Techniques as CITF and FBI
 

Raise Objections (U) 65
 

D.	 Military Services React to GTMO Requestfor Interrogation Techniques (U) 67
 

E.	 Department ofDefense General Counsel Quashes Joint StaffLegal Review (U) 70
 

F.	 GTMO and JPRA Plan for Additional Interrogation Training (U) 72
 

V.	 Command Change at Guantanamo as Dispute over Aggressive Techniques Continues (U) 73
 

A.	 Major General Geoffrey Miller Takes Command ofJTF-GTMO (U) 73
 

B.	 Khatani Interrogation Plan Fuels Dispute Over Aggressive Techniques (U) 74
 

I.	 JTF-GTMO StaffCirculate Khatani Interrogation Plan (U) 75
 

2.	 CITF and FBI Object to Proposed Interrogation Techniques (U) 78
 

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

4.	 "Final" Khatani Interrogation Plan (U) 8] 

5.	 FBI and ClTF Continue to Object to Khatani Interrogation Plan (U) 84
 

6.	 Khatani Interrogation Begins, CITF Directed To "Stand Clear" (U) 87
 

UNCLASSIFIED 

ii 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

7.	 Techniques Used During Khatani Interrogation (U) , ,..88
 

VI.	 JPRA's Assistance to Another Government Agency (U) 91
 

VII.	 Secretary Rumsfeld Approves Interrogation Authorities, GTMOPlans to Implement SERE
 

Techniques (U) '" 94
 

A.	 Secretary ofDefense Authorizes Aggressive Techniquesfor use at GTMO (U) 94
 

B.	 JTF-GTMO Develops Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Use ofSERE
 

Techniques in Interrogations (U) , 97
 

C.	 SERE School Trainers Provide Instruction for GTMO Interrogators (U) 103
 

D.	 Navy General Counsel Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques, Secretary 

Rumsfeld Rescinds Authority (U) , 105 

E.	 National Security Council (NSC) Principals Discuss DoD Interrogations (U) 109
 

VIII.	 New Interrogation Policy Developed for GTMO (U) 110
 

A.	 The Working Group Solicits Information on Interrogation Techniques lI0 

1.	 The Defense Intelligence Agency Provides Information on Specific Interrogation
 

Techniques (U) 110
 

2.	 The Working Group Solicits Information About Interrogation Techniques From
 

CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM (U) '" 113
 

3.	 The Working Group Requests Informationfrom JPRA (U) 116
 

B.	 Department ofJustice Office ofLegal Counsel's Analysis Is Presented As Controlling
 

Authority (U) , 118
 

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

D.	 SOUTHCOM Presses for Additional Techniques (U) 128
 

E.	 JPRA Briefs Members ofthe Working Group on SERE Techniques, Including Physical
 

Pressures (U)..........................•..............................................•....................... 130
 

F.	 The Working Group Finalizes Its Report and the Secretary ofDefense Issues a New
 

Interrogation Policy For GTMO (U) " 130
 

IX.	 Aggressive Interrogations at GTMO (U) , 132
 

A.	 Allegations ofDetainee Mistreatment (U) 132
 

B.	 Special Interrogation Plans Modeled on Khatani Interrogation (U) 135
 

1.	 JTF-GTMO Plans for Interrogation ofSlahi (U) 135
 

UNCLASSIFIED 

iii 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

2.	 JTF-GTMO Formally Submits Special Interrogation Planfor Slahi (ISN 760) 

(U)................•....•.•.•..........•....•...•..•...•..•..•.......•.•..•........•....•..•.........•136
 

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

4.	 Special Interrogation Plan Approved and Implemented Despite Apparent
 

Cooperation (U) 140
 

5.	 FBI Concerns with Special Interrogation (U) 141
 

6.	 Special Project at GTMO Uses Aggressive Interrogation Techniques (U) 141
 

7.	 CITF Reissues Order for Agents to "Stand Clear" ofAggressive Interrogations 

(U).........................................................................•.........................143
 

8.	 GTMO Seeks Approvalfor Two Additional Special Interrogation Plans (U) 143
 

a.	 Special Interrogation Plan #3 (U) 143
 

b.	 Special Interrogation Plan #4 (U) 144
 

c.	 SOUTHCOM and OSD SO/LIC Recommend Approval ofSpecial
 

Interrogation Plans #3 & #4 (U) 145
 

X.	 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Withdraws March 14,2003 Legal Opinion Governing DoD
 

Interrogations (U) 146
 

XI.	 Development oflnterrogation Policy in Afghanistan (U) 148
 

A.	 Assessment Team Visit to Guantanamo Bay (U) 149
 

B.	 The Deaths ofDilawar and Habibullah (U) 151
 

c.	 Questions Raised About Task Force Participation in OGA Interrogations (U) 152
 

D.	 January 2003 Task Force Interrogation SOP (Afghanistan) (U) 153
 

E.	 CJTF-/80 Produces Memorandum on Interrogation Techniques (U) 154
 

F.	 CENTCOM Raises Concerns About Interrogation Techniques (U) 156
 

XII.	 Development of Interrogation Policy in Iraq (U) 157
 

A.	 Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Policies (U) 158
 

1.	 SMU Task Force Uses Afghanistan Interrogation Policy (U) 158
 

2.	 OGA Comments on SMU TF Interrogation Techniques (U) 159
 

UNCLASSIFIED 

iv 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

3.	 July 2003 Interrogation SOP Draftedfor Iraq SMU TF (U) J59 

4.	 Iraq Survey Group Concerns with SMU TF Detainee Treatment (U) J62 

B. Interrogation Policies for Conventional Forces in Iraq (U)...............................•..........J64
 

J.	 CJTF-7 Stands Up (Summer 2003) (U) J64 

2.	 Interrogation Operations Begin at Abu Ghraib (U) J65 

3.	 51 y h MI Battalion at Abu Ghraib Seeks Additional Guidance (U) J66 

4.	 51yh MI BN Proposes Interrogation Policy (U) J66 

5.	 CJTF-7 Solicits "Wish List" ofInterrogation Techniques (U) J67 

6.	 Interrogation OIC at Abu Ghraib Resubmits the Proposed Interrogation Policy for 

51yh MI BN(U) J69 

C.	 JPRA Provides "Offensive" SERE Training in Iraq (U) J70 

1.	 Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq Seeks Assistancefrom JPRA (U) J70 

2.	 Awareness ofthe JPRA Trip to Iraq at Headquarters, Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) (U) J7J 

3.	 JPRA Provides Interrogation Support to the Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq 

(U)	 J73 

4.	 JPRA Team Authorized to Participate in Interrogations (U) J74 

5.	 JPRA Present as Interrogator Uses Stress Positions and Slaps (U) J76 

6.	 JPRA Team Authorized to Use SERE Techniques (U) J79 

7.	 JPRA Team ChiefSeeks Legal Guidance (U) J79 

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

9. JPRA Team Chief Objects to SMU TF Interrogation (U).......•.•..•..••...•.......•.•.• J82 

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) J87 

J3. JFCOM Verifies Team Chief's Account ofEvents in Iraq (U) J88 

UNCLASSIFIED 

v 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

D. Major General Geoffrey Miller Leads GTMO Assessment Team to Iraq (U) 189
 

1. CJTF-7 Commander Identifies Deficiencies (U) 189
 

2. GTMO Assessment Team Travels to Iraq (U) 190
 

3. GTMO Team Visits Iraq Survey Group (ISG) (U) 191
 

4. GTMO Team Visits Special Mission Unit Task Force (U) 193
 

5. GTMO Team Discusses Interrogations with CJTF-7 (U) 194
 

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

7. JTF-GTMO Assessment Team Produces Trip Report (U) 198
 

8. MG Miller Briefs Senior DoD Officials on Assessment Visit (U) 199
 

E. Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy Established (U) 200
 

1. CJTF-7 Commander Issues Policy Including Aggressive Interrogation Techniques 

(U) 200
 

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

3. CENTCOM Raises Concerns About CJTF-7 Policy (U) 202
 

4. CJTF-7 Issues New Interrogation Policy (U) 204
 

F. SMU Task Force Issues a New Interrogation SOP (U) 206
 

XIII. Interrogation Techniques and Detainee Mistreatment at Abu Ghraib (U) 207
 

A. Use ofMilitary Working Dogs (U) 208
 

B. Stress Positions and Physical Training (U) 210
 

C. Removal of Clothing (U) 211
 

D. Sleep Adjustment!Sleep Management (U) 213
 

E. Sensory Deprivation and Isolation (U) 215
 

F. "Lost Opportunity" to Fix Problems at Abu Ghraib (U) 216
 

1. Retired Army Intelligence Officer Leads Assessment Team (U) 216
 

2. Assessment Team Visits Abu Ghraib and CJTF-7 Headquarters (U) 217
 

UNCLASSIFIED 

vi 
UNCLASSIFIED
 

3. Team Hears Reports ofDetainee Mistreatment (U) 218
 

4. COL Herrington Reports Findings (U) 218
 

XIV. Interrogation Policies Following Abu Ghraib (U) 219
 

A. February 2004 CJSOTF Interrogation SOP (U) 219
 

B. Interrogation Plan in Iraq Derivedfrom SERE (U) 221
 

C. March 2004 Interrogation SOPfor Conventional Forces in Afghanistan (U) 221
 

D. Special Mission Unit Task Force Interrogation Polices (U) 222
 

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

A. May 2004 CENTCOM Request (U) 224
 

B. CENTCOM Makes Another Request for JPRA Interrogation Assistance in Afghanistan 

(U) 228
 

c. 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 ofDefense. The Committee also 

reviewed documents provided by the Department ofJustice, documents in the public domain, a 

small number of documents provided by individuals, and a number ofpublished 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 ofDefense employees, though the Committee 

also interviewed current and/or former employees ofthe Department ofJustice and the Federal 

Bureau ofInvestigation. 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 
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 

GTMO (GITMO) 

HUMINT 

HVD 

HVf 

ICE 

ICRC 

UNCLASSIFIED 

List of Acronyms (U) 

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 ofOperations 

Central Intelligence Agency's CounterTerrorist Center 

Defense Human Intelligence Service, part ofDIA 

Defense Intelligence Agency 

Department of Defense 

Department of Justice 

Defense Prisoner ofWar/Missing Personnel Office 

Designated Unlawful Combatant 

Enemy Prisoner of War 

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation 

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 

G-2 
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 

UNCLASSIFIED 

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 ofJustice Office of Legal Counsel 

Office ofthe Secretary of Defense 

Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

Operational Support Office (JPRA) 

Office ofThe 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 
SOP 

SOUTHCOM 

S-V91 

TF 

TJAG 

TTPs 

UCMJ 

USASOC 

USDI 

VTC 

WMD 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Standard Operating Procedure 

U.S. Southern Command 

Department of Defense High Risk Survival Training 

Task Force 

The Judge Advocate General 

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 

Uniform Code of Military Justice 

U.S. Army Special Operations Command 

Under Secretary ofDefense for Intelligence 

Video Teleconference 

Weapons ofMass 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 ofU.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 ofdetainees 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 

ofour 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 ofCommon 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 ofpolicy, 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 iftaken 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 ofinterrogators 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 ofJPRA 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 fast, 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 ofU.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 ofthat plan remain classified but Dr. Jessen's 

initiative is indicative ofthe interest ofJPRA'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 ofphysical 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 ofDefense 

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 ofDefense 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 ofLegal 

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 ofthe OLC who succeeded Mr. Bybee in that job, described the memo's conclusions: 

UNCLASSIFIED 

xv 
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 

ofspecific 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. Y00, 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 ofthe legal analyses ofproposed interrogation techniques that 

were prepared by the Department ofJustice... 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 ofthe psychological effects ofmilitary 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 Y00 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 ofSeptember 16, 

2002, a group ofinterrogators 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 staffreturned 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 ofthat meeting 

indicate that it was dominated by a discussion ofaggressive 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. Ifthe detainee dies you're doing 

it wrong." 

(U) On October 11,2002, Major General Michael Dunlavey, the Commander ofJTF-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 ofthe 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 

StaffJudge Advocate, wrote an analysis justifYing the legality ofthe 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 ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff. Days later, the Joint Staff 

solicited the views ofthe military services on the request. 

(U) Plans to use aggressive interrogation techniques generated concerns by some at 

GTMO. The Deputy Commander ofthe Department ofDefense'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 ofthe 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 ofthe [Uniform Code ofMilitary 

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 ifthe endsjustify 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" ofthe 

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 ofit. 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 ofDefense 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 ofphobias (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 

ofDefense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary ofDefense 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 ofstress 

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 ofDefense from approving the use ofthe 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 ofSERE 

techniques in interrogations. The draft SOP itselfstated 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 ofMohammed 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 ofblanket authority 

for the use ofaggressive 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
 

ofmeetings 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 ofDefense "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 oftechniques 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 ofa "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 ofaggressive techniques reflected 

in the Working Group's report. Their arguments were rejected in favor ofa legal opinion from 

the Department of Justice's Office ofLegal 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 ofJustice 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 ofthe 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 StaffJudge 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 ofdogs" another technique approved by the Secretary on December 2, 

2002. 

(U) From Afghanistan, the techniques made their way to Iraq. According to the 

Department ofDefense (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 ofDefense in December 2002 reflect the 

influence ofSERE. 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 ofdetainees 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 

20Sth Military Intelligence Brigade, who met with Major General Miller during that visit, said 

that the tenor ofthe 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 ofsome ofthe 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 ofDefense 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 ofLegal Counsel was presented with a "short stack" of0 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 ofMarch 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 ofinterrogation 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 ofthe 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 ofJFCOM, 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 ofJPRA's defensive mission." 

(U) Interrogation policies endorsed by senior military and civilian officials authorizing 

the use of harsh interrogation techniques were a major cause ofthe 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 ofinterrogation 

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 ofthe 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 oftheir 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 ofDefense 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 ofDefense 

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 ofCIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions 

subsequently issued by the Department ofJustice's Office ofLegal Counsel (OLC) interpreted 

legal obligations under u.s. anti-torture laws and determined the legality ofCIA interrogation 

techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent ofanti-torture laws, 

rationalized the abuse ofdetainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department ofDefense 

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 ofpolicies 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 ofSERE 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 ofdetainees 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 StaffJudge 

Advocate became aware ofand 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 ofthe Joint Chiefs of StaffGeneral Richard Myers's decision to cut 

short the legal and policy review ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofDefense 

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 StaffJudge Advocate that senior military lawyers called 

"legally insufficient" and "woefully inadequate" is deeply troubling. 

Conclusion 13: Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization ofaggressive 

interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. 

Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval ofMr. Haynes's recommendation that most of 

the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and 

contributed to the use ofabusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and 

stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Conclusion 14: Department ofDefense General Counsel William 1. Haynes II's direction to the 

Department ofDefense's Detainee Working Group in early 2003 to consider a legal memo from 

John Yoo ofthe Department ofJustice'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 ofseveral 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 ofDefense'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 ofmilitary 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 ofDefense 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 
I. Early Influences on Interrogation Policy (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 ofOperation 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 ofJustice wrote a memorandum to 

Department ofDefense (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 ofJustice (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 ofthe Taliban, and that they would not receive the protections afforded to 

Prisoners Of War (POWS).5 

1 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"). 

2 Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Y00 and Special COl.D'lsel Robert Delahunty of Defense 

General Counsel William 1. Haynes IL Application ofTreaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees 

(January 9, 2002). 

3 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). 

4 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 raliban 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). 

1
 
(U) On January 19,2002, Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld instructed the 

Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, to infonn 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 infonned 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 ofits provisions ..." He recommended that the President stand by his 

order to set aside the Geneva Conventions. 10 

(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 (designated as ''unlawful combatants" in the memorandum) were not entitled to POW 

status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. 11 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 ofpolicy, the United States Armed Forces 

6 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). 

7 Ibid. 

S Cable from the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of StaffRichard Myers to U.S. MilitaIy Unified Commands and 

Services (January 21, 2002). 

9 Memo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President George W. Bush, Decision Re Application Of 

The Geneva Convention on Prisoners OfWar To The Coriflict WithAl Qaeda And The Taliban (January 25,2002). 

10 Judge Gonzales dismissed as ''unpersuasive''legal and policy arguments that such an order would reverse 

longstanding U.S. policy and practice; undermine the protections afforded to U.S. or coalition forces captured in 

Afghanistan; limit prosecution of enemy forces under the War Crimes Act (which only applies if the Geneva 

Conventions apply); provoke widespread international condemnation, even ifthe 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 U.S. militaIy 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 ofsetting 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 ReApplication OfThe Geneva Convention on Prisoners OfWar To The Conflict With Al Qaeda And 

The Taliban (January 25, 2002). 

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

2002). 

2
 
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 oflaw but those protections are applied as a matter of polici" it is desirable to 

circumscribe that policy so as to limit its application to the CIA,,1 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.16 

(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 ofDefense 

(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. 17 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. . 

B.	 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 "CounterResistance StrategyMeeting 

Minutes') 

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

3
 
Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for 

infonnation about detainee "exploitation.,,18 . 

(U) JPRA is an agency ofthe Department ofDefense 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 

administering any technique. 22 Students are even given a phrase they can use to make the 

instructor immediately cease application of all pressures. 

2 

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 andAgainstAmerican 

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 andAgainst 

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. 

22 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 ifneeded, 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 ofprior psychological diagnoses since their original militaryentry physicals. These procedures are used not only to screen people out of participating in training, but also for 

4
 
(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 ofinterrogators, 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 ofusing 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). 

24 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 ofJerald Ogrisseg to Questions for the Record (July 28, 

2008); Committee staff interview of Jerald Ogrisseg (June 26, 2007). 

2' Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, Review o/DoD-Directed Investigations o/Detainee 

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. 

5
 
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 ofJPRA 

activities in support ofany offensive interrogation mission prior to that request from the General 

Counsel's office. In response to the request, JPRA Chiefof 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 ofphysical deprivations has an "intolerable public and political backlash when 

discovered.,,34 

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

_(F In December 2001 or Janu 

psychologist, Dr. James Mitchell, asked his former 

colleague, the senior SERE psychologist at JPRA, Dr. John "Bruce" Jessen, to review documents 

27 Email from LTC Morgan Banks to MN Paul Burney an~October2, 2002).
 

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

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

2001). 

31 Ibid. at 3-4. 

32 Ibid. at 4. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid. 

6
 
describin al aeda resistance trainin .35 The two psychologists reviewed the materials,_ 

and generated a paper on al Qaeda resistance capabilities 

and countermeasures to defeat that resistance. _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 an.as 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). 

37 Email from Col Randy Moulton to MAl Jack Holbein, BGen Thomas Moore, CAPT Darryl Fengya, 

(February 14, 2002). 

38 Ibid. 

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

40 Email from Col Randy Moulton to MAl Jack Holbein, BGen Thomas Moore, CAPT Darryl Fengya, 

(February 14, 2002). 

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

42 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). 

7
 
D. JPRA Support to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) (U) 

------..m...rebruary 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) 

_ sent an official request for support to JFCOM's 13, Brig Gen 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 GTMO interrogation 

staffwhere issues were discussed.47 Dr. Jessen said 

that he and Mr. Witsch went to make a "pitch" to about how JPRA could assist.48 

Witsch stated that he worked with Dr. Jessen to develop a set of briefing 

slides ~training.49 The Department ofDefense 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 AI 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 ofthe slides were consistent with what he would have taught at the training 

session. 51 

_ The "AI 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). 

44 Ibid. 

4' 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.") 

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

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

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

49 Hearing to Receive Information Relating To The Treatment of Detainees, Senate Committee on Armed Services,
 

110th Congo (September 4,2(07) (Testimony of Joseph Witsch) at 20 (hereinafter "Testimony of Joseph Witsch
 

(September 4, 2(07)'').
 

'0 Testimony ofJoseph Witsch (September 4,2007) at 20.
 

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

8
 
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 ofwhat we were 

doing at the time and what we constantly did when we trained SERE students.,,54 

III( 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. 

II( The. 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 ofthe methods used 

by SERE instructors to take away the "personal dignity" ofstudents at SERE schoo1.58 

• !-I I 

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 ofthe 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). 

56 ( 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 andAgainst 

American Prisoners andDetainees. 

57 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). 

58 Ibid. at para 5.3.3. 

59 Ibid. 

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

61 Ibid. 

9
 
II( 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 ofDefense 

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. Ifdeprived of input, the brain will make it up." 64 

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

training. 6 

(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 

III 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 to.personnel, said that physical pressures were 

not discussed at the March 8, 2002 training. 70 

_ ( Following the training, Dr. Jessen sent an email to JPRA Commander 

Col Randy Moulton stating that the JPRA team "provided instruction to_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 ofthe Geneva Conventions."n Dr. Jessen told the Committee, however, that he would 

62 Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training andAgainstAmerican Prisoners and Detainees. 

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

64 Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training andAgainstAmerican 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). 

67 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007). 

68 Ibid. at 44. 

69 Ibid. at 25. 

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

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

72 Ibid. 

10
 
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 ofDOD 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 

requires a more 'exploitation oriented' approach than the students received. [JPRA's Personnel 

_ Dr. Jessen stated: "My impression is 

Recovery Academy (PRA)] instructors do this better than anyone. IfJPRA 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, ifJPRA planned to "go[] this direction.,,76 

E. 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 (13) 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. 

73 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 ofBruce Jessen (November 13, 2(07). 

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

75 Ibid. 

76 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). 

11
 
F. 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 ofJoint 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 Stafffor Intelligence.82 

(U) At the time ofCOL 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 sometimesthe 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 ofthe 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 ofinterrogators 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 

81 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 andRecommendations 

(March 22,2002) at 8. 

82 See COL Herrington, Report ofVisit andRecommendations; COL Herrington also provided an additional list of 

"suggestions" for MG Dunlavey and his 12, LTC Ron Buikema. See Memo from COL Stuart Herrington to MG 

Michael Dunlavey, Suggestions (March 25, 2002) 

83ITF-160 was established at Guantanamo Bay in the mid-l 990s to support relief and migrant processing centers for 

Haitian and Cuban migrants. 

84 COL Herrington, Report ofVisit and Recommendations at 1-2. 

8' Ibid. at 2. 

86 Ibid. at 3. 

12
 
(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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 

IIA memo written by Colonel Mike Fox (SOUTHCOM's Director ofIntelligence 

Operations) just a month after COL Herrin on's r ort, also discussed how conditions at GTMO 

inhibited successful interrogations. 

87 Ibid. at 4. 

88 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. 

89 Ibid. at 6. 

90 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. 

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

13
 
G. 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 ofthe JPRA, Col 

Randy Moulton, and the senior civilian leadership ofthe organization. 94 

_The exploitation plan drafted by the senior SERE psychologist contained 

recommendations for JPRA involvement in the detainee exploitation process at an undisclosed 

facility. 

_( The "Exploitation Draft Plan," which was circulated on April 16, 2002, 

stated that its objective was to "[h]old, manage and exploit detainees to elicit critical 

information.,,9S The Ian 0 osed an "e loitation facility" be established at a 

fflimits to non-essential ersonnel 

observers.,,9 The Ian also described the fundamentals 

'exploitation of select al Qaeda detainees." 7 

_ ( 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. 

93 Ibid. 

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

9~ 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 

98 Ibid 

99 Ibid. 

14 
latitude and ocess to offer and validate information for concessions 

have a "sponsor" provide all other personnel and direct the process. This option was also 

rejected as "ineffective," noting that ifJPRA could "direct" the exploitation process, there would 

bea 

"good chance of [JPRA] making a real difference," but "ifnot," there are "too many other 

"b"l" t d ,,100 responsl 1 Ittes 0 expen "." energy on. 

_( 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 ofDr. Jessen's draft exploitation plan also identified "Critical 

Operational Exploitation Principles" for interrogation operations. Those principles included: 

(l'he only restricting factor should be the Torture Convention), [7] Established 

100 Ibid. 

101 Ibid. 

102 Ibid. 

103 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). 

104 JPRA, Exploitation Drqft Plan (emphasis added). 

15
 
_ ( 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 ofEngagement. 106 Dr. Jessen, however, did not reject the idea ofhaving 

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) 

A. 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 ofJustice and that he asked CIA to seek advice 

not only ~om DoJ's Office ofLegal Counsel (OLC) but also from the Criminal Division. 112 Ms. 

Rice said that she asked Director ofCentral 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 confmned 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 ofBruce Jessen (July 11,2007). 

107 Committee staff interview ofBruce 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 ofDetainees 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). 

16
 
legality ofthe 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, 1lOth 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, 110th 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). 

17
 
(U) An unclassified version of a May 2008 report by the Department ofJustice (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 ofFBI Special Agent (December 21,2007).
 

123 Ibid.
 

124 Ibid.
 

123 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 ofFBI Special Agent (December 21,2007).
 

128 Ibid.
 

18
 
(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 ofZubaydah'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 

B. JPRA Assistance to Another Government Agenq' (U) As. 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. 

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

133 DoJ IG Report at 69; see also CounterResistance 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 (Janumy 4, 2007); see also JPRAlOSO,. conca 

Operationsfor JPRA support to anticipate re uirements (October 3,2002). The memo states, has made 

informal requests for JPRA support to prepar to use exploitation/interrogation techniques ... Five 

separate meetings have been conducted betwee and JPRArepresentatives..." 

19
 
__At some noint in the first six months of2002, JPRA assisted with the 

preparation of~sentto 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. Bruce Jessen JPRA's senior SERE psychologist, told the Committee 

that he had met with a who was en route to an interrogation L39 He said he. 

have offered the but that he did not discuss 

~o

_ JPRA also conduct~and pre-mission preparation for a group of 

On June 17,2002~~entarequesttotheJoint~D

a oval for 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 

re uest asked that IPRA provide training on 

topics such a deprivation techniques," "exploitation and questioning 

techniques," and "deviiloing countermeasures to resistance techniques.,,144 The training was 

intended to "prepare officers for rotations in Afghanistan and elsewhere...145 

_ In response to that request, IPRA Deputy Commander Col John Prior 

recommended to the JPRA Commander: 

I~Memofrom Col John Prior II to JPRNCC (Col Randy Moulta1), Requestfrom"or Interrogation 

Training Support (J\U1e 20, 2002). 

l]8lbid. 

13ll.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

the senior SERE psychologist began working as a contractor t but was restricted from discussing the
 

nature of his work with the Committee. Committee staffinterview ofBrucc Jessen (November 13, 2(07).
 

140 .Memo from Focal Point Bran~to Joint Sta~ ....3LQW. Special Activities Branch, (U) Request/orJPRA Personnel/or Training (June 17, 20(2) (hcreina~

__Request/or JPRA Personnel/or Training (J\Dle 17, 2002)"). 

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

142 11Fax cover sheet from_to Christopher Wirts (via Colin Junkins) (June 18, 20(2). 

lei Committee staffinterview ofWilliam 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. Wilts explained to his point of contact a that their ability to support the request was 

hindered Py Dr. Jessen's availability, who Mr. Wilts described 88 "critical in • .: .... .:.A !.II' that I Iis requiring." Memo from Christopher Wilts (via_to 

Support to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) (June 14,2002). 

J4' IRequest/orJPRA Personnel/or Training (June 17,2002). 

he left JPRA After he left JPRA in 2002. 

20
 
Because ofthe urgent need to extract information from captured al Qaeda 

operatives, and because JPRA has the sole repository ofthe r~

JPRA personnel should provide this expertise and training to_ 

To prevent compromise and inadvertent modification ofJPRA's charter, 

personnel will avoid linking JPRA directly to this training. 

. . . Having the true exploitation and captivity environment experts and specialists, 

JPRA may be called upon in extremis to actually participate in fhture exploitation 

offoreign prisoners; this request would clearly fall outside JPRA's chartered 

responsibilities; ifthis request is made, JPRA would require a SecDefpolicy .. 146 detennmabon ... 

_Col Prior's memo stated that the JFCOM J-3 or his office had be~sedof 

• support requests. 147 A Joint Staff Action Processing Fonn indicated that__request 

was endorsed by JPRA, JFCOM, Joint Staff, and the Office ofthe Undersecretary ofDefense for 

Policy and approved on June 27, 2002. 148 

_( In advance ofthe training, JPRA developed a two day lesson for_ 

~overingthe "full spectrum [of] 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, 

walling, immersion in water, stripping, isolation, and sleep deprivation, among others. 150 

_Thetwo 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 Mghanistan 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 JPRAlCC (Col Randy Moulton), Requestjrom_jor Interrogation 

Training Support (June 20, 2002). 

14~Memo from Col John Prior II to JPRAlCC (Col Randy Moulton), Requestjrom~orInterrogation 

Training Support (June 20, 2002). Although Col John Prior told the Committee that he could not recall the June 20, 

2002 memo, JPRA Commander Col Randy Moulton recalled receiving it at the time. Since the Committee's 

interview ofCol Prior, the Department ofDefense has provided the Committee with a copy of the memo that was 

signed by him. 

14811Joint Staff Action Processing Form, (U) JPRA Personneljor Training (June 27, 2002). 

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

150 Ibid. at 64-69. 

~~mofrom Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wirts, Exploitation TrainingjoJ. 

_(July 16,2002). 

152 Ibid. 

21
 
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 instruction on waterboarding. 154 

(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. 155 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. 156 

_ 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 ofphysiological 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 instructors who conducted the training did not recall_lawyers 

providing any further guidance about how to seek approval for use ofthe waterboard in an . . 160 mterrogallon. 

(D) However, Chief Counsel to the Jonathan 

Fredman later described an approval process for the use of aggressive interrogation techniques 

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

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

m Memo from Dr. Percival to JPRA CC (Col Moulton), Comments on Physical Pressures usedfor cae Training
 

(June 18, 2004). 

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

IS~mo from Joseph Witsch to Col Randy Moulton and Christopher Wirts, E~ploitation Training/mil 

_ (July 16, 2002). 

1S8 Ibid. 

"9 Ibid. (emphasis in original). 

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

22
 
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 from_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 

III ( 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 oftechnique. 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 

C.	 Senior SERE Psychologist Detailed From Department ofDefense to Other 

Government Agency (U) 

IIIn July 2002, after the JPRA training for_the senior SERE 

psychologist, Dr. Bruce Jessen was detailed to~S.167 At the conclusion of 

161 CounterResistance 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). 

23
 
this assignment, Dr. Jessen retired from the Department ofDefense 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 ofphysically 

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 ofa 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 ofphysically 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 

former JPRA officials to form a company called Mitchell Jessen & Associates. Mitchell Jessen 

& Associates is co-owned by seven individuals, six ofwhom either worked for JPRA or one of 

the service SERE schools as employees and/or contractors. I72 As of July 2007, the company had 

between 55 and 60 employees, several ofwhom were former JPRA employees. 173 

D.	 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 ofStaff 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 al. (July 25, 2002). 

24
 
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 (13), and received pennission 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 

II( 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 determine their requirements. 181 

(U) JPRA attached several lesson plans on exploitation and interrogation to the memo. 182 

In closing, the memo stated: 

173 DoD!G, Interview ofRichard Shiffrin (July 24,2006) at 6. 

176 Committee staff interview ofRichard Shiffrin (May 22,2007). 

177 SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08). 

178 Ibid. 

179 Committee staff interview ofLt Col Daniel Baumgartner (August 8, 2007); see also email from Col Moulton to 

(June 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 understood what OSD/GC was looking for, we provided an list of techniques.") 

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. 

25
 
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 ofhis 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 oftechniques 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 'bl 186 qUlC Yas pOSSI e. 

(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 ofphysical pressures to increase the psychological and physical stress on 

students ...,,189 

183 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?") 

184 Email from Lt Col Daniel Baumgartner to Col Randy Moulton et aI., copying Darrell Venture (JFCOM 

Directorate of Operations) (July 25,2002). 

IS' Committee staffinterview ofWilliam 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 51,59. 

186 SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008). 

187 Ibid. 

188 Committee staff interview ofLt 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. 

26
 
_ ( 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 

ofthe 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 ofwater, 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 

conftnement, immersion in water or wetting down, and waterboarding. 

( JPRA's description ofthe waterboarding technique 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 ofwater" 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 ofwater 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 conftnement, induced physical weakness and exhaustion, degradation, 

190 Ibid. 

191 Memo from Lt Col Baumgartner to Office ofthe Secretary ofDefense Geneml Counsel, Exploitation and 

Physical Pressures (July 26, 2002) at 1. 

192 JPRA, Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training andAgainstAmerican 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. 

194 Compare FASO Detachment Brunswick Instruction 3305.C (January 1, 1998) at E-5 with Physical Pressures 

Used In Resistance Training and'AgainstAmerican Prisoners andDetainees at 3-4. 

27
 
conditioning, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, disruption of sleep and biorhythms, and 

manlpu . I· fd· t 195 atIon 0 Ie. 

(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 

IIMr. 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 

ofattachment two) in interrogations. 20o The attachment said that one risk was that the use of 

these methods would increase the "prisoner's level ofresolve 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 ofphysical 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 andAgainstAmerican Prisoners and Detainees. 

196 Committee staff interview ofWilliam 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. 

28
 
(U) A third operational risk was the potential impact that the physical and psychological 

duress could have on treatment ofUS. personnel. 205 JPRA explained in attachment two that: 

Another important aspect ofthe debate over the use oftorture 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 Chiefof 

Psychology Services at the Air Force SERE school, Jerald Ogrisseg, on the "Psychological 

Effects ofResistance 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 ofAir Force SERE training on US. personnel and commented from a 

psychological perspective on the effects ofusing the waterboard. 

(U) JPRA Chief of StaffDaniel 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. 

'lIY1 Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, Psychological Effects ofResistance Training (July 24, 2002), attached to memo from Lt Col 

Daniel Baumgartner to Office of the Secretary ofDefense General Counsel (July 26,2002) (hereinafter 

"Psychological Effects ofResistance Training'''). 

208 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). 

209 SASC Hearing (June 17,2(08). 

210 Ibid. 

2ll Ibid. 

212 Ibid. 

29
 
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 He told 

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 ofthe 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 ''waterIJ 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 ifthey 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 o/Resistance Training 

214 Psychological Effects o/Resistance Training at 1. 

m Ibid. 

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

217 SASC Hearing (June 17,2008); Psychological Effects o/Resistance 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 ofDefense General 

Counsel, Exploitation and Physical Pressures (July 26, 2002); Psychological Effects o/Resistance Training at 2. 

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

30
 
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 ofSERE 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 information). 

(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 ofwaterboarding 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 ofSERE 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 ~da psychologist at_ 

about the request and sending the information to the --.223 

E. 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 ofJustice issued two legal opinions 

signed by then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office ofLegal Counsel (OLC) Jay Bybee. 

(U) Before drafting the August 1,2002 opinions, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 

the OLC John Y00 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 Then220 Dr. 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). 

221 Committee staff interview ofJerald 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 

31
 
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 first ofthe two August 1,2002 OLC memoranda, known to many as the "First 

Bybee" memo, presented OLC's narrow interpretation ofwhat 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, impairment 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~flcant 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-chiefpowers. Further, the memo argued that even 

ifthe 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 ofthe 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 Decemher 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 ofDavid Addington); SASC Hearing (JWle 17, 2008) (Testimony ofWilliam 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). 

226 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 Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Standards o/Conduct/or 

Interrogation under 18 U.S.c. §§ 2340-2340A (August I, 2002). 

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). 

32
 
(U) Jack Goldsmith, who succeeded Jay Bybee as Assistant Attorney General ofthe 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 ofGeneral 

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 ofJustice. 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 ofthe Department ofJustice Inspector General explained that the opinion 

analyzed "specific techniques approved for use on Zubaydah includ[ing] waterboarding ...,,236 

-" --------------­

d 

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 

oftorture, and widely broader than necessary in its assessment ofPresidential authorities. The Terror Presidency at 

143-51. 

232 The Second Bybee memo has been withheld from the Committee. 

233 Sixth Dec!. ofMarilyn A Dorn, 56, American Civil Liberties Union, et aL v. Department ofDefense, et aL, No. 

04-Civ. 4151 (January 5, 2007). 

234 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). 

23' 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.) 

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 IIL House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 110lh 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. 

33
 
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 

information that he had sent to the DoD General Counsel - including the list of SERE techniques 

and Dr. Ogrisseg's memo on the pS1.;chological effects of Air Force SERE training and on 

waterboarding - to. attorney. 43 Mr. Haynes, the DoD General Counsel, recalled that in the 

context ofreviewing 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 ofresistance 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 ofthe Second Bybee memo has not been released publicly. 

240 Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the OLC John Y00, who participated in the drafting of the Second Bybee 

memo, added that in the context ofthe 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 ofJustice 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). 

141 From the Department ofJustice 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). 

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

144 Committee staff interview ofWilliam J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 88. 

34
 
government interest in that subject, but that he did not know ifthat 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 Y00 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 ofthe 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 

F. 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 ChiefChristopher Wirts a draft memorandum outlining the_ 

145 Ibid. at 104, 106; see also Redacted version ofMemo 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 ofthese procedures, with the exception [redacted].") 

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).
 

148 From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administmtion Lawyers and Administmtion Interrogation
 

Rules, Part ill, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
 

Liberties, 1101b Congo (June 26, 2008).
 

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).
 

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

252 Ibid.
 

35
 
[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 

InterrogationslResistance 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 

m_ Memo from_to Chief of Staff, JPRA (Lt Col Daniel Baumgartn~hief, Mission Support 

(Christopher Wirts), Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 2002) (hereinafter _toJPRA, Requestfor 

Training Support (August 12, 2002)"). 

254 Ibid. (emphasis added). 

255 Ibid. 

256_to JPRA, Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 20~did not have the 

~oteach "legal perspectives" and in his discussions with"-"'-about the training, 

__indicated that JPRA would not be expected to teach that topic. Committee staff interview of Christopher 

Wirts (January 4, 2008). 

257_to JPRA, Requestfor Training Support (August 12, 2002). 

258 Ibid. 

259 Ibid. 

260 Ibid. 

261 Ibid. 

262 Ibid. 

36
 
(U) The Operating Instruction used to implement DOD directive 1300.7 are those 

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

2. JPRA Creates Project 22B (U) 

_ ( Also o~st 12,2002, a meeting was held at JPRA headquarters "to 

discuss future JPRA sUPE0rt to.actions to obtain actionable intelligence from Detained 

Unlawful Combatants." 66 A memo from JPRA's Co Col Randy Moulton describing 

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 

th nfi d that JPRA t tha . . bl f .d' .:. 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 ofDefense "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 fulfill_requirement for training, including how they would facilitate 

the practice int~tion sessions - i.e., with JPRA members "portray[ing] resisters ofdifferent 

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 

26.l Ibid. 

164 Ibid. (emphasis in original). 

26~ Ibid. 

266 Memo from JPRAlCC (Col Randy Moulton) to JPRA B/J7/PRA,II Support t.Project 22B (August 13, 

2002) at 1. 

267 Ibid. 

268 Ibid. 

269 Ibid. 

270 Memo from JPRA asa, I Concept ofOperationsfor JPRA support to anticipated.requirements (October 

3,2002). 

37
 
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" to_and noted that~anticipatesa 

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 ofDefense 

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, ~twoinstructors 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 ofCommand. On December 2,2002, Secretary ofDefense Rumsfeld approved many of
 

those techniques for use in interrogations at GTMO.
 

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

(U) In June 2002, members ofthe Army's 85th Medical Detachment's Combat Stress 

Control Team deployed to Guantanamo Bay. ~eemembers ofthe team ­

psychiatrist Major Paul Burney, psychologist _ and a psychiatric technician ­

were informed that MG Michael Dunlavey, the Commander ofJTF-170, had assigned them to 

support interrogation operations as part of a newly created Behavioral Science Consultation 

Team (BSCT) at the JTF. This assignment came as a surprise to MAl Burney and_ 

because, when they were deployed, the two understood that their mission would be to care for 

271 Ibid. 

272 Memo from JPRNCC (Col Randy Moulton) to JPRA J3/J7IPRA,.SuPPOrl to.Project 22B (August 13,
 

2002) at 1.
 

273 Ibid. 

38
 
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 

ofJune and did not know who initiated the creation ofthe ITF-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 ofhow little we 

knew about the whole spectrum of detention and interrogation, we decided we needed help.278 

B.	 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.iiiiiilliliil 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. 

174 Committee staff interview of MAJ Paul Burney (August 21, 2007); Committee staff interview of 

(September 12, 2007). 

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

176 Committee staff interview ofMG Michael Dunlavey (November 30, 2007). 177. 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). 

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

179 Committee staff interview o~(September12, 2007). 

39
 
IILTC Banks told the Committee that it was apparent to him that the BSCT lacked the 

proper training for the mission and that, when asked to help, he felt obliged to assist. 28o 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 

informed the BSCT that JPRA was willing to modify its prior interrogation 

training sessions to suit the BSCT's needs.282 

(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 StaffJudge 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 and_made LTC Banks "aware that there was 

interest within JTF-170 to see ifwe could use' SERE tactics' to try to elicit information from 

detainees.,,286 _toldthe 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 ofphysical 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 ofLTC 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 (September 12, 2007); Committee staff interview ofMAJ Paul 

Burney (August 21,2007). 

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

28,2006) at 14. 

285 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 ofMAJ Paul 

Burney (August 21, 2007). 

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

289 Committee staff interview ofLTC Morgan Banks (July 2, 2007). 

40
 
(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 

more . d' I Imme late resu ts. 291 

_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 ofthat 

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 

II 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 himselfsaid that GTMO 

290 

(September 

Army IG, 

12, 

Interview 

2007). 

of MAl Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 6; Committee staff interview o~

291 Army IG, Interview of MAl Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 6. 

292 The ICE Chief told the Committee that interrogators identified only "a couple of nebulous links." Committee 

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

(September 

293 Committee 

12, 

staff 

2007). 

interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007); Committee staff interview o~

294 Committee staff interview ofDavid 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 ofDavid Becker (September 17,2007). 

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

2Y1 Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007). 

41
 
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 

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

IIJust 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 ofintelligence collection operations at Guantanamo Bay.300 In 

response, the Joint Staff directed COL John P. Custer, then-assistant commandant ofthe 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 b f' ha . . GTMO" t 11' .:. 11 ct' 

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

stating that: 

IICOL 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 JTF-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. 

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

300 _ COL John Custer,. CJCS ExtemalReview ofGuantanamo Bay Intelligence Operations (U) (September 

2002) (hereinafter "Custer Report"); see also BriefIng Slides, GTMO Review: Joint StaffExtemal Review of 

Intelligence Operations at Guantanamo Bay. Cuba (September 10, 2002). 

301 Custer's team included subject matter experts from Fort Huachuca, the Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of 

Defense. 

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 I 2. 

30' Ibid. I I-12. 

42
 
IIIn 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 ofboth human capital and infrastructure. 306 

(U) Several witnesses expressed concerns to the Committee about using the term "Battle 

Lab" to describe operations at GTMO.307 In written answers to questionnaires from Senator Carl 

Levin, COL Britt Mallow, the Commander ofthe 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' ofnew 

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 

D. 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 ofStaff, 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. 

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

James (May 18, 2007).
 

308 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). 

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). 

312 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 

43
 
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. 

IIDr. Percival and one ofthe two trainers, Joseph Witsch, had been instructors at the 

exploitation training for. 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 

_( 

including one called 

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, 2(02); Committee staffinterview ofDr. Gary-Percival (July 25,2(07).
 

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, 2(07) at 14; Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 25.
 

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

for USASOC Training Support (U) (August 28, 2002). 320"Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, Exploitation ofCaptive, presentation to GTMO personnel at Fort
 

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

321 Ibid. at 4.
 

44
 
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, Exploitation ofCaptive with JPRA, Exploitation Drqft Plan.
 

323 JPRA, Exploitation ofCaptive.
 

324 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)").
 

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.
 

330 JPRA, CounterMeasures 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").
 

45
 
that situation.,,331 He testified that lPRA might have become aware that the invasion ofthe 

personal space by a female might make an Arab detainee uncomfortable while conducting · . h J!: .. 332 research m preparatIon lor t 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 ofthe stuffthat 

they would do in SERE school as far as keeping people in some sort ofsolitary confinement for a 

period oftime" or "finding out what their fears were before they came so that they would try and 

use those against them, whether it was fear ofspiders, ofthe dark or whatever...,,335 An 

interrogator from GTMO who attended the training also recalled a discussion about the use of 

phobias. 336 

II ( Members ofthe GTMO BSCT who attended the Fort Bragg training 

recalled discussions with the JPRA instructors about how they administered physical 337 pressures. MAl 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 _toldthe 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 (September 12, 2(07). 

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

341 Ibid. 

46
 
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 ifthere were discussions ofphysical 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 

II( 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 ChiefJos h Witsch 

described some ofthose 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 

342 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. 

343 Committee staff interview ofLTC 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). 

346 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). 

347 Ibid. 

348 Ibid. 

47
 
having some effect, he stated that the positive effect appeared limited to the "younger, 

inexperienced" detainees.,,349 . 

II( 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 fonner 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 ofthe detainees, and the 

lack of direction of senior leadership within the [U.S. Government] on how to 

unifonnly 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 ... Ifwe 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 

_The 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 

E. 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 JTF. 353 

II( 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 ofissues including "policy constraints" affecting 

interrogations at the JTF. 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 

undergoing a policy determination by SOUTHCOM.355 The trip report noted that Mr. Haynes 

"opined that JTF-170 should have the authority in place to make those calls, per POTUS order," 

adding that he "[t]hought JTF-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 o/Detained 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 25th, Jack Goldsmith, another senior official on the trip, recounts that the visit took 

place on September 26, 2002. Goldsmith notes that Patrick Philbin. then-ChertoffChief 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. 

49
 
F. 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 JTF 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 JTF-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 ifthe 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 ofsuggested detention 

and interrogation policies in the course of an evening. MAJ Burney told the Committee that 

some ofthe interrogation approaches identified in the memo came from their JPRA training in 

Fort Bragg and other approaches were simply made up by the BSCT. 365 _ the BSCT 

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 ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07).
 

360 Committee staff interview ofLTC Jerald Phifer (June 27,2007).
 

361 Written statement ofMN Paul Burney (August 21,2007).
 

362 Ibid.
 

363 Army IG, Interview ofMAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 11. 

364 Ibid. 

36' Committee staff interview ofMN Paul Burney (August 21, 2007). However, in testimony to the Army IG, MAJ 

Burney said he did not know whether the memo incorpomted tactics from the Fort Bragg training. Army!G, 

Interview ofMAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006) at 11. 

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 ifCategory 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 ofisolation for up to 

30 days (with the possibility ofadditional 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 ofback-to-back 20 hour interrogations once per 

week; removal of all comfort items including religious items; forced groominfi; 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. 

373 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 Jme 2001 as the ITF-170 J2 and 

Commanding Officer ofthe 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). . 

51
 
_ 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 ofvisitation by treating medical professionals or the 

International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC); the use offood 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 ofsleep 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 

II( MAl Burney and_toldthe 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 ofresistance...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 physical and/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. 

378 

(September 

Committee 

13, 

staff 

2007). 

interview ofMAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2007); Committee staff interview o~

379 BSCT, Counter-resistance Strategies at 6. 

52
 
(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 ofdiscomfort, 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 ofresistance 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 

G. CIA LawyerAdvises 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. 

53
 
(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 ftrst 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 brieftng 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 ofrapport 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~don 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. 

54
 
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 pray again.,,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 intemationallaw, 

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 permanent 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 permanent damage. Everything in the BSCT 

[memo] is legal from a civilian standpoint.397 

(U) According to the minutes, when the participants ofthe 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. 

397 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 ofthe 8th amendment .. 

.That gives us more license to use more controversial techniques." Ibid. 

398 Ibid. at 5. 

399 Ibid. at 3. 

55
 
(U) When an attendee at the meeting mentioned that law enforcement agents (presumably 

referring to CITF and FBI) had concerns about the use ofaggressive 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 ofthe 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 ChiefDavid Becker asked whether GTMO 

could get blanket approval for the use oftechniques 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 ofdeath. 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 11 CounterResistance 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 staffphysical 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 Diane Beaver (October II, 2007); see Committee staff interview of

(August 22, 2007); Travel voucher. 

404 Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes at 4. 

40' Ibid. 

406 Ibid. 

407 Ibid. at 3. 

56
 
(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 

IIThe October 2, 2002 meeting minutes indicated that the group discussed Mohammed 

al 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 

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

_ According to the Department ofDefense, 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 aI. (October 28, 2002). 

409 _ LTG Joseph Jnge, DEPSECDEFInquiry Regarding Location o/Inte"ogation Plan/orISN 063 (August 

24, 2006) at 5 (hereinafter "Jnge Report''). 

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

411 Ibid. 

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

57
 
turned him over to U.S. forces on December 26, 2001.413 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 

413 Memo from COL John Redis (ITF-GlMO Chief ofStafl) to SOUTRCOM Chief of Staff (March 14, 2005), 

attached as Tab 1 to Inge Report (August 24,2006). 

414 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-GlMO, Analyst Support Summary (March 18, 2003), 

attached as Tab 22 to Inge Report (August 24, 2006). 

415 Inge Report at 5. 

416 Memo from COL John Redis (ITF-GlMO Chief of Stafl) to SOUTRCOM Chief of Staff (March 14, 2005), 

attached as Tab 1 to Inge Report (August 24, 2006); Inge Report at 5. 

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

Interrogation Techniques Issue (September 23, 2002). 

418 Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

58
 
(U) While MG Dunlavey's memo stated that the request had "been reviewed by my Staff 

Judge Advocate and determined to be legally sufficient," 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 ofthe 

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 

419 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 "/I//signed on 1 

Oct 02////." Committee staffrequested the Department ofDefense provide a signed copy or advise the Committee of 

any reason why the Committee should not rely on the document. The Department provided neither. 

420 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. 

422 Ibid. 

423 Ibid. 

424 Ibid. 

42' 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 oftechniques are being utilized and that the personnel 

on the ground are properly trained to conduct these techniques.") 

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

59
 
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 IG, Mr. Becker acknowledged that he permitted the military working 

dog to enter the interrogation in order to raise the detainee's stress level.429 

IIMr. 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.430 ~lr. 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 IG, however, that Mr. 

Becker never told him that he had approved the use ofa 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 [ofKhatani] 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 

II( In an October 8,2002 email to his colleague, an FBI agent described ITF170's interrogation ofKhatani, stating that DoD had tried "sleep deprivation," "loud music, 

bright lights, and 'body placement discomfort,' all with negative results" and that DoD 

interrogators planned to stop the interrogation.434 Mr. Becker told the Committee that the 

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 

427 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 ofAgent Robert Morton (January 20, 2005), exhibit 36 to Schmidt-Furlow Report; 

summarized witness statement ofAgent Charles Dorsey (January 20,2005), exhibit 41 to Schmidt-Furlow Report. 

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

Report. 

429 Army IG, Interview ofDavid Becker (September 20,2005) at 30. 

430 Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17,2007). 

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

432 Responses of LTC Jerald Phifer to questionnaire of VADM Church (July 16, 2004). It is not clear from those 

written answers whether LTC Phifer was referring to the use of dogs in ITF-170's October 2002 interrogation of 

Khatani or in the subsequent interrogation of Khatani that began in late November. 

433 Committee staff interview ofMajor General Michael Dunlavey (November 30, 2007). 

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

m Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

60
 
(U) Another FBI agent reflected upon the failed interrogation in his own email ofOctober 

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 JTF-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 ofwhich 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 ofa 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 

II 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). 

437 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 

Strategies'). 

438 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 ofthe things did remain intact from our original 

brainstorm to what was eventually requested." Army IG, Interview ofMAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2(07) at 11. 

439 The October 11 memo also stated that "current guidelines for interrogation procedures at GTMO limit the ability 

ofinterrogators to counter advanced resistance." LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, RequestforApproval of 

Counter-Resistance Strategies". 

440 Ibid 

441 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 

61
 
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 ofscenarios 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 fmger, 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%" ofthe 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 

(U) LTC Phifer said that he drafted his memo with Mr. Becker. 4So Mr. Becker, however, 

told the Committee that he was provided a draft only after it was nearly complete. He said that 

442 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 

(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, RequestforApproval 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. 

448 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.") 

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

4'0 Committee staff interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007). 

62
 
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 ofusing 

some ofthe techniques in his memo but that MG Dunlavey pressured him to fmish the request.452 

B.	 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 briefwith her staff over the 

course ofthe 2002 Columbus Day weekend.454 She told the Committee that she had not seen 

either ofthe legal memoranda produced by the Department ofJustice Office ofLegal 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, 

irnpainnent 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 ofDefense "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 ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

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

m CounterResistance 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). 

Resistance 

Strategies"). 

458 

457 Memo 

The SJA 

from 

Strategies 

concluded 

LTC Diane 

(October 

that 

Beaver 

because 

II, 

for 

2002) 

the 

Commander, 

techniques 

(hereinafter" 

in 

Joint 

the 

LTC 

Army 

Task 

Beaver, 

Force 

FM 34-52 

Legal 

170, 

are 

Legal 

Brief

"constrained 

Brief

on Proposed 

on Proposed 

by, 

Counter-Resistance 

and conform 

Counterto the 

Geneva Conventions and applicable intemationallaw," 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. 

63
 
(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 harm. 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 

harm.,,461 LTC Beaver told the Committee that she did not conduct any research to determine 

whether the use ofthe techniques described in the accompanying request for authority would, in 

fact, result in long-term mental harm.462 

II( 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 ofMilitary 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.,,465 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 LTC Beaver, Legal Briefon Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies at 2. 

460 Ibid. at 5. 

461 Ibid. 

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

463 BSCT, Counter-Resistance Strategies (October 2, 2002). 

464 LTC 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. 

64
 
issue constituted violations ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Joint Chiefs of StaffCAPT 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 ofthe memo and that she did not discuss it with him after it was 

completed.473 

C	 Chain o/Command Considers the Request/or 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 

467 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. 

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

469 Committee staff interview ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07). 

4'71l SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08); Committee staff interview ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9,2007). 

471 SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08). 

471 Ibid. 

473 Committee staff interview ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2(07) . 

474 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. '') 

65
 
SJA, I have concluded that these techniques do not violate u.s. or international 

475 laws.

(U) On October 25,2002, GEN Hill forwarded the JTF-170 request to Chairman ofthe 

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 ofthe 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 ofSERE 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 ofthese 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 ofimplied 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. 

476 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 

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. 

482 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. 

66
 
(U) One SOUTHCOM Assistant StaffJudge 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 ifthat meant you had to pull out fmgernails 

you'd pull out fmgernails, figuratively speaking.484 

D. Military Services React to GTMO Request/or Interrogation Techniques (U) 

(U) On October 30,2002, after receiving Gen Hill's memo and the GTMO request, the 

Joint StaffJ-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 ofmany 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 ofwhich 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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), Counter-Resistance Techniques (October 30,2002). 

486 Department ofthe 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. 

67
 
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 ofscenarios 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 ofa 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofDefense 

and the Department ofJustice.,,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 ofscenarios 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 ofsuffocation "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 ofthe 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). 

496 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 ofthe 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.") 

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

498 Ibid. 

68
 
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 "ifwe 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 techniques 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 ofMr. 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 CrrFMission andPersonnel (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. 

69
 
(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 ofaggressive techniques.505 MAl McCahon 

concluded: 

I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon 

the principle that all is well ifthe ends justify the means and others are not aware 

ofhow 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 

E. 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 infonnation 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 ofEliana Davidson (May 23, 2008). 

509 SASC Hearing (June I7, 2(08). 

510 Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2(08) at 33. 

m Ibid. at 45. 

m Ibid. at 41. 

m Ibid. at 33. 

514 Ibid. at 34. 

70
 
(U) CAPT Dalton recalled making Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of StaffGeneral Richard 

Myers aware ofthe 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 

available to the General Counsel's office.518 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 ofCategory 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 ofit. 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 (Jooe 17, 2008). 

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

m SASC Hearing (Jooe 17, 2008). 

518 Committee staff interview ofEliana Davidson (February 21, 2008). Ms. Davidson said in a subsequent interview 

that she was not aware ofthe military services' comments before discussing the October II, 2002 GTMO request 

with the DoD General Counsel. Committee staff interview ofEliana Davidson (May 23,2008). 

519 SASC Hearing (Jooe 17,2008). 

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

m Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2008) at 34. 

522 Ibid. at 35. 

523 SASC Hearing (Jooe 17,2008). 

524 Ibid. 

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

71
 
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" ofdiscussing with CAPT 

Dalton her efforts to conduct an analysis ofthe 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 ofthe 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 

F. 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 

techniques to GTMO interrogators.532 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 

• (FODO) 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). 

mIbid. 

,: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 ofWilliam 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 168. 

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

for TF-170 Training Support (October 16, 2002). 

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

'34 Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

72
 
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 ofDecember.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 

v.	 Command Change at Guantanarno as Dispute over Aggressive Techniques 

Continues (U) 

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

(U) In November 2002 a new Commander, MG Geoffrey Miller, took command ofITFGTMO. 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 ofDefense staff. MG 

Miller told the Committee that GEN Hill authorized him to speak directly with the Joint Staff 

and the Office ofthe Secretary ofDefense, 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 ofthe Assistant Secretary ofDefense 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 to , 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 ITF-170 and ITF-l60 were combined to form JIF-GTMO in October 2002; Memo from to 

[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 ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007). 

542 Ibid. 

543 Ibid. 

73
 
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 ofhis 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 informed 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 SOUfHCOM 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 CITF and FBI, drove a deeper wedge 

between his organization and both CITF and FBI. 

B. 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 offuture interrogations at GTMO and therefore they "had to get it right.,,551 

II Several drafts ofJTF-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 !G, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20, 2005) at 11. 

548 Ibid. 

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

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

m Committee staffinterview ofFBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007). 

74
 
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. 

1. JTF-GTMO StaffCirculate 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 ofall Category I and 

II counter resistance techniques against Khatani.,,552 GEN Hill told the Committee that he had 

no recollection ofthat. 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 ofthe 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). 

m 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 ofthe plan that contained the ITF-GTMO Commander's signature. 

556 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 ofFBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007). 

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

559 Inge Report. 

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

75
 
· II( 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 ·d 561 gUl ance. 

·	 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 Plans/or Detainee #063, entry at "1111212002" 

(emphasis added). 

'64 Email from LTC Diane Beaver to (November 14, 2002) (emphasis added). Then-National 

Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that she was neither briefed 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). 

'6' Memo from to [Joint Staff], GTMO Detainee (November 15, 2002) 

(emphasis added). 

'66 Interrogation Plan for ISN:_tani](November 12, 2002). 

'67 Ibid. 

76
 
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 

II 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 

II Phase II ofthe plan was to lace a coo erative detainee or a native lin ist at Cam 

X-Ra in full view ofKhatani.572 

IIPhase III ofthe 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.
 

77
 
IIThe 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 offisland 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 

2. 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 ofthe 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 ifthey 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 ofinformation 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 ofthe 

Khatani interrogation plan at that time and did not "specifically" recall his staffadvising him that 

CITF and FBI had concerns with interrogation techniques in the Khatani interrogation plan.580 

A CITF Legal Advisor, , also raised objections to JTFGTMO'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. 

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

'so Committee staff interview ofWilliam 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 221, 228. 

78
 
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 

• The 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 ofCOL Mallow's concerns, instead telling 

the Committee that the interrogation was delayed because he had not received SOUTHCOM's 

approval.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 ITF-GTMO 

staffto discuss developing such a plan587 

3.	 . JTF-GTMO Briefs DoD General Counsel's OffICe on Interrogation 

Plan (U) 

'81 Memo from for Major General Geoffrey Miller, Objection to Aggressive Interrogation 

Techniques (November 15, 2002). 

'82 Ibid. 

'83 Memo from to J-2, Joint Staff, GTMO Detainee _063.(November 15, 2002). 

'84 Committee staff interview ofMG 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. 

79
 
.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 ifshe had a copy ofthe interrogation plan itself and did not recall saying that the 

~fDefense 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 ofDefense] 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 ofharsh 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 ofLTC 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 ofFBI 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~(August21, 2007) at 8. 

'96 FBI memo to Major General Miller, vrc 2I Navember 2002 (undated). 

'97 FBI and 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. 

4. "Final" Khatani Interrogation Plan (U) 

II ( 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 ofdogs were removed from the 

plan at his direction. 604 

III( 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 

ofdogs in interrogations.605 MG Miller said, however, that he only approved the use of dogs for 

security around the perimeter ofCamp 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 ofdogs for interrogation purposes.6

0

6 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. 

603 Interrogation Plan for ISN: [Khatani] (November 22,2002) (hereinafter "Khatani interrogation 

plan (November 22, 2002)."). 

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. 

81
 
being outside the interrogation room, they discussed the purpose ofthe dogs' presence during 

interrogations was that it "exploits [the detainee's] fear.,,607 

II ( 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 

II( 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 Staffreferencing the 2002 interrogation stated that 

Khatani had "slight abrasions caused by stress positions and shackle restraints.,,612 

II( The November 22, 2002 plan identified by MG Miller as the final plan 

described five phases to the interrogation. 613 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' ofthe detainee.,,614 Dr. Gelles 

.said that the idea ofinducing the Stockholm syndrome implied that '<the subject feels that he is to 

be killed and the infonnation provided may in fact be distorted.,,61s 

II( Phase II ofthe November 22, 2002 plan (which is largely the same as Phase 

I ofthe earlier plan) stated that prior to the start ofthe 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 ofhospital gauze to restrain the 

detainee's mouth to prevent him from becoming argumentative and verbally abusive. 

6111 Ibid. 

608 Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17,2007). 

~,MethodsEmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 63(S) (January 17,2003). Army IG, Interview of 

_(April 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 ~fStaff, USSOUTHCOM, Executive Summary on Information 

Concerning Detainee ISN:~(Ilj (March 14, 2005). 

613 Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002). 

614 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. 

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

616 Khatani interrogation plan (November 22, 2002). 

82
 
Phase III ofthe November 22,2002 plan was largely the same as Phase II of 

the earlier plan and 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 ofraising 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 

IIDespite 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, ifthe fIrst three phases ofthe 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 of063 will be determined. 622 

617 Interrogation Plan for ISN: [Khatani] (November 15, 2002) (hereinafter "Khatani interrogation 

plan (November 15, 2002)"); Khatani interrogation plan (November 22,2002). 

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 

5. 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 ofGeneral 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 ofany 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 ofFBI Special Agent (November 8,2007). 

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

84
 
General Counsel. DoD General Counsel Jim Ha;res 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 ofindividual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce 

stress - as "coercive interrogation techniques which are not permitted 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, Le. 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 ifthe trier offact 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 oftreatment - 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 ofit 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 ofthe 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).
 

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

2002). 

636 Ibid. 

637 Email from Marion Bowman (December 3,2002). 

638 Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
 

1091b Congo (February 16, 2005).
 

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

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

85
 
The DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for 

International Affairs, Eliana Davidson, said that the FBI's Unit Chiefbelieved that efforts at 

GTMO were not bein roductive and that he advocated for Khatani's transfer durin the 

VTC. 642 

DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes said he did not 

remember discussing the possible rendition ofKhatani, 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 ofFBI Special Agent (November 8,2007). 

642 Committee staff interview ofEliana Davidson (May 23, 2008). 

64J Committee staff interview ofFBI Unit Chief (May 17, 2008). 

644 Ibid. 

64~ Ibid. 

646 Ibid. 

647 Committee staff interview ofFBI Special Agent (November 8,2007). 

648 Committee staff interview ofWilliam 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 232. 

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

86
 
(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 ofunreliable 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 

6. Khatani Interrogation Begins, CITFDirected 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 

6jO Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agents (November 8,2007). 

6jl Committee staff interview of FBI Special Agent (November 8, 2007). 

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

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

6j4 Committee staff interview of David Becker (September 17, 2007). 

6jj Army Regulation 15-6: Final Report: Investigation Into FBI Allegations ofDetainee Abuse At Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba Detention Facility, prepared by Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt and Brig. Gen. John Furlow (hereinafter "SchmidtFurlow Report''). 

6j6 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). 
Khatani was taken to X-Ra 

7. 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 

was sent to a hostile country which advocated torture.,,658 stated that Khatani was 

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 

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-DINTOI-0174) (U)" (June 8, 2006) at 8. 

664 Memo, Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 63 (January 17, ~ofthe memo is unknown 

but a copy of the memo was sent by the JTF-GTMO BSCT psychiatrist,_ to LTC Morgan Banks, 

88
 
_( 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 ofKhatani'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 ofits use as an interrogation technique. 

· II( MG Miller told the Committee that he informed 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 ofmy 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 ofJoint 

Intelligence Group (JIG) Commander) told the Committee that they were not aware that 

Khatani was strip searched.670 

•	 Both Mr. Becker, the ICE Chiefpresent 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 ofinterrogation personnel. 671 

the Chief ofthe Psychological Applications Directorate (pAD) at the u.s. Army's Special Operations Command
 

(USASOC).
 

665 See Section I D, supra.
 

666 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4, 2007) at '22; Level C Peacetime Governmental Detention Survival
 

JPRA Instructor Guide, Exploitation: Threats and Pressures, Module 6.0, Lesson 6.1, para 5.3.3 (Version GOl.l).
 

667 Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 63 (January 17, 2003).
 

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

669 Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6,2007); Sworn Statement ofMG Geoffrey Miller
 

(June 19, 2004). 

670 Committee staff interview ofLTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007); Committee staff interview of COL Richard 

Sanders (August 10, 2007). 

671 Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007); Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker 

(September 17, 2007). 

89
 
_ ( 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 pra~er was denied in 

circumstances where prayer was ''used as a resistance technique." 72 The memo stated that up to 

eight ounces ofwater 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 dog to the outside ofthe 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 

IG that 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 Inte"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 ofITF-GTMO Interrogator (January 9, 2008); Methods EmployedX-Ray Inte"ogation 

ISN 63 (January 17, 2003). 

680 Committee staff interview ofITF-GTMO Interrogator (January 9, 2008). 

681 Army !G, Interview of MAJ Paul Burney (April 28, 2006). 

90
 
[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 ofthe 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 _saidthat 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 ChiefDavid 

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 ofITF-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 for_ 

interrogators. 690 

682 Ibid. 

683 Ibid. 

684 Committee staff interview of (August 13, 2007). 

68~ Ibid. 

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

(K1 Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (May 2,2006).
 

688 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.
 

689 Army IG, Interview ofDavid Becker (September 20, 2005) at 31.
 

690 Email from Christopher Wirts to Joe Witsch, Gary Percival, and Terry Russell (November 12, 2002).
 

91
 
III( A Joint Staff Action Processing Form shows that_request was 

endorsed by JPRA, JFCOM, Joint Staff, and the Undersecretary ofDefense 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 ofa 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 that'" 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. 

92
 
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~

~icipatedin 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 to_and how it's done, [and described] basic steps in order to 

do it.,,707 

_None ofthe JPRA personnel at_trainini had performed waterboarding or 

were qualified to teach others how to perform the technique.7o In fact, Mr. Witsch, who 

described the technique to_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 

1112 Ibid. at 128, 86. 

703 Ibid. at 129. 

704 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6, 2007) at 41. 

705 Committee staff interview ofDr. Gary Percival (July 25,2001). 

706 Testimony of Joseph Witseh (September 6,2001) at 107. 

707 Ibid. at 109. 

708 Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 4, 2008); Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 6, 

2001) at 113-14 

709 Testimony of Joseph Witsch (September 4,2001) at 112-113. 

710 ( 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 

ofwater 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.") 

93
 
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 that_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) 

A.	 Secretary ofDefense Authorizes Aggressive Techniques for use at GTMO 

(U) On November 27, 2002, Mr. Haynes sent a memo to Secretary ofDefense Donald 

Rumsfeld recommending that the Secretary authorize the Commander of SOUTHCOM to 

employ, at his discretion, all Category I and II techniques and one Category III technique (''use 

ofmild, 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 ofDefense 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 "I need a recommendation.,,719 

711 Ibid. 

71l Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3. 2007) at 87-88. 

713 Ibid. 

714 Ibid. 

m Ibid. 

716 Ibid. 

717 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)"). 

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). 

94
 
(U) Mr. Haynes's memo concluded that while "all Category III techniques may be legally 

available, we believe that a blanket approval ofCategory 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 ofit. 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 ofJustice 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 ofJustice about the October 11, 2002 GTMO request and he did not believe OOJ 

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 ofDefense Approval ofCounter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002). 

nI Responses ofGeneral Richard Myers to April 16, 2008 written questions from Senator Carl Levin (April 30, 

2008); SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008). 

7'l2 SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008). 

723 Ibid 

714 Committee staffinterview ofWilliam J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 172. 

n'Ibid. . 

726 GEN Hill to CJCS, Counter-Resistance Techniques. 

m ConfIrmation Hearing ofWilliam James Haynes II to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Senate Committee 

on Judiciary, 1091h Congo (July II, 2006). 

72lI Committee staffinterview ofWilliam J. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 175-177, 190. 

729 Ibid. at 193; SASC Hearing (June 17, 2008). 

7JO Committee staffinterview ofWilliarn 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 175-177, 186. 

95
 
his legal analysis. 731 GTMO StaffJudge 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 ofrestraint."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 staffat Guantanamo" had 

traveled to "SERE school," where they "developed a list oftechniques ..." 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 SOUfHCOM be 

731 Ibid. at 177. 

m SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08). 

7J3 Ibid. 

734 Ibid. 

m Secretary ofDefense Approval ofCounter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002). 

736 Committee staff interview ofWilliam 1. Haynes IT (April 25, 2008) at 188. 

731 Comment matrix, Legal Review ofDraft SECRETI/NOFORN DoD IG Report, 'Review ofDoD-Directed 

Investigations ofDetainee Abuse (Project No. D2004-DINT01-0174) (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 ofWilliam 1. Haynes IT (April 25, 2(08) at 170. 

96
 
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 ofthe memo that questioned one ofthe limitations in the ITF-GTMO request, 741 

In reference to ''the use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum offour 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 ofDefense. 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 

B.	 JTF-GTMO Develops Standard Operating Procedure (SOp) for the Use of 

SERE Techniques in Interrogations (U) 

III( On December 14, 2002,just prior to a staffmeeting, GTMO's Director for 

Intelligence, LTC Phifer, gave Mr. James, the CITF Special Agent in Charge, a document 

entitled "JTF-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 ofDefense on December 2, 2002.746 

II( 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 ofthe 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 ofDefense 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)''). 

97
 
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 

(D) The December 18, 2002 draft stated that "interrogators will undergo training by 

certified SERE instructors prior to being approved for use of any ofthe 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 JTF-GTMO Commander, MG Miller. 

II( 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 

ofDefense'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 ofthe shoulder slap 

differed from the technique as applied at the Navy SERE school. 752 The Navy instruction 

manual described the shoulder slap ,,753 

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."m 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.
 

98
 
"[i]n addition to degradation ofthe detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the 

omnipotence ofthe captor or to debilitate the detainee.,,757 

l1li( 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 staffreviewed 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 ofinjury 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 ofthe SOP and did not participate at all in drafting it. 767 

IIOn 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 ofthe 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 ifsenior SERE trainers... 

agree with this assessment or not."773 MAJ Burney also recommended that, ifIfF-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). 

76') Ibid. 

770 Ibid. 

771 Ibid. 

7nIbid. 

m Ibid. 

774 Ibid. 

100
 
(U) Mr. Becker, the ICE Chiefwho 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 staffmeeting. 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 staffmeeting 

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 ofJoint 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 ofDavid Becker (October 17, 2007). 

716 Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et a!. (December 17, 2002). 

TrTEmail from LTC Diane Beaver to Lt Col Ted Moss and LTC Jerald Phifer (December 14, 2002). 

m Army!G, Interview of LTC Jerald Phifer (March 16,2006) at 9. 

T79 Committee staffinterview ofLTC Jerald Phifer (June 27, 2007). 

7llO Ibid. 

781 Committee staff interview of COL Richard Sanders (August 10, 2007). 

782 Committee staff interview ofLTC Ted Moss (October 17, 2007). 

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

784 Committee staff interview ofMAl Paul Burney (August 21, 2007). 

785 Army !G, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (March 28, 2006); Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller 

(December 5,2007). 

101
 
he had no knowledge ofit. 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...This 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 staff is 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 

186 Email from CITF Special Agent in Charge (December 18, 2002); Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller 

(March 28, 2006). 

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

788 Ibid. 

789 Committee staff interview ofTimothy 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). 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). 

191 Draft Memo from Timothy James to JTF-GTMO/J2, JTF-GTMO "SERE" Interrogation SOP DTD 10 Dec 02 

(December 17, 2002). 

792 Ibid. 

79:l Email from Timothy James to Mark Fallon et al. (December 18, 2002). 

194 Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007); Committee staff interview ofMG Geoffrey 

Miller (December 6, 2007). 

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. 

• c. SERE School Trainers Provide Instruction/or 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 ofproviding 'physical pressures' training." According to the 

SERE Training Specialist, John Rankin, that directive was a letter from the Secretary ofDefense 

which was shown to him by Lt Col Moss. 799 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 ofboth 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 

'195 Memorandum from John Rankin and Christopher Ross to Officer in Charge, FASOTRAGRULANr Det 

Bnmswic/c, 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). 

802 Ibid; Intelligence Science Board, Phase I Report: Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art 

(December 2(06) at 316. 

803 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). 

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 offinto 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.,,807 One ofthose 

interrogators recalled being told that ifinterrogators 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 ~ermitted.,,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 ofJanuary 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 

805 Ibid. 

806 Committee staff interviews ofJTF-GTMO interrogators (July 12, 2007) and (January 9, 2008). 

807 Ibid. 

808 Committee staff interview ofITF-GTMO interrogator (July 12, 2007). 

809 Committee staff interview ofITF-GTMO interrogator (January 9,2008). 

810 Army !G, Interview of COL Richard Sanders (March 14, 2006). 

811 Ibid. at 6. 

812 Committee staff interviews of JTF-GTMO interrogators (July 12,2007), (November 6,2007), and (January 9, 

2008). 

813 Committee staff interview ofLt Col Ted Moss (October 17, 2007). 

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

8H 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 ofhis 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 

D.	 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 ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9, 2007). 

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

819 AAR JTF-GTMO Training Evo,lution (January 15, 2003). 

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

821 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). 

822 Committee staff interview of John Rankin (September 24, 2007). 

823 Memorandum from John Rankin to Captain Weis, Physical and Psychological Pressures During Interrogations 

(January 3, 2003). 

105
 
(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 informed 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 ofinterrogation 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 ofabuse 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 ofdetainee 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 oflight 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

814 Responses ofMark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15,2007). 

825 Memo from Alberto 1. Mora to the Inspector General, Department ofthe Navy, Statementfor the Record: Office 

ofGeneral Counsel Involvement in Interrogation Issues (July 7,2004) at 2-3 (hereinafter "Mora, Statementfor the 

Record''). 

826 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 further." Mora, Statement 

for the Record at 5-6. 

827 SASC Hearing (June 17, 2(08). 

828 Mora, Statementfor 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 ofDefense and the Deputy Secretary ofDefense 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 ofa memo written by a Navy JAG Corps Commander, Stephen Gallotta. 835 

IIIn 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 ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).837 

IIIn 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 ofpain inflicted, or combinations oftechniques, 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. 

836 Memo by CDR Stephen Gallotta, Counter-Resistance Techniques (January 9, 2003). The Services ~ised 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. 

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 ofthe proposed category II and all ofthe 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 ofDefense 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. 

843 Mora, Statementfor the Record at 15; see also Mora responses to questions for the record from SASC Hearing 

(June 17, 2008) ("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 ofthe fact upon our f1!St conversation 

that day."). 

844 Memo from the Secretary of Defense to Commander USSOUTHCOM, Counter-Resistance Techniques (January 

15,2003) (hereinafter "SECDEF memo to CDR SOUTHCOM (January 15,2003)"). 

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 

ifyou want to be on the team. ",847 

_Following the Secretary's rescission, Khatani was moved out ofCamp X_Ray.848 

Beginning on January 15,2003 only Category I techniques were used in his interrogation. 

Category I techniques included yelling and techniques ofdeception. 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 ofdetainees 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 ofmeeting 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 ofDefense detention policies 

and practices at Guantanamo.855 She said that, as a result she "convened a series ofmeetings of 

847 Responses of Mark Fallon to questionnaire of Senator Carl Levin (September 15,2006) at 16. 

848 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). 

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 ofrepresentatives 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 StaffJudge Advocate for the Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff 

Legal Counsel and the Joint StaffDirectorate for Strategic Plans and Policy (J5).859 

A.	 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 

1.	 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 techniques, 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 techniques 

by DoD interrogators." 

858 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 

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 ofLegat Historicat 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 ProposedAgenda, 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 ofinterrogation 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 

_ Mr. Becker compiled a list of36 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 oflight 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 ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

865 Ibid. 

866 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). 867. Proposed Agenda, Working Group Meetii(Janwuy 23, 2003); (U) Proposed Detainee Interrogation 

Working Group Responsibilities (Initial) (Undated) DIA'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 ofDavid 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 ofFalsified Documents and Reports, Use 

ofIsolation 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 ofDetainee 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 ofMild, Non-Injurious Physical Contact, Use of 

Drugs, Use ofFemale 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 ofscenarios to convince the 

detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent, exposure to cold weather or 

water, use of a wet towel and dripping water, and the use ofmild, 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 ofWar (POWs).874 His memo recommended that the Working Group 

conduct a policy review on the "reciprocity oftreatment 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~may have already been using the 

Catego~ III techniques and stated that_had apparently obtained assistance from 

JPRA8 He wrote: 

These [Category III] techniques may be employed bY. 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 

870 _ List ofinterrogation 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. " 

871 List of interrogation techniques compiled by DIA. 

871 Ibid. 

87J Ibid. at 3. 

874 Ibid. 

87S Ibid. 

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

877 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 

techniques. 

878 

_ 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," but that 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 ,,880

that the waterboard is one ofthe techniques used with effect b~

mterrogators. 

_ As to the three "less common techniques" in his memo - use ofdrugs, 

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 

2. The Working Group Solicits 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 Staffprovide a list oftechniques "currently in effect or 

previously employed in CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM, techniques the combatant commanders 

have found to be effective, and techniques the combatant commanders desire to implement with 

. . I ,,884 accompanymg rationa e. 

_ SOUTHCOM relied on the ITF-GTMO Commander to respond to the 

Joint Stafftasking. MG Miller sent SOUTHCOM Commander General Hill a memo on January 

878 Ibid. 

879 Ibid. 

880 Ibid. 

882. 881 Ibid. at 

( "[1] Use 

4. 

of Drugs: Drugs such as sodium pentothal and demero1 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. 

883 Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker (September 17, 2007). 

884 Proposed Detainee Interrogation Working Group Responsibilities (Initial) (undated) at 1; Proposed Agenda, 

Working Group Meeting (January 23, 2003). 

113
 
21, 2003 on the effectiveness oftechniques that had been rescinded by the Secretary ofDefense 

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 ofan 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 ofup to 20-hour interrogations; the use of a hood during 

transportation and movement; removal of all comfort items (including religious items); serving 

ofmeals ready to eat (MREs) instead ofhot rations; forced grooming, to include shaving of 

facial hair and head; and the use offalse 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 ofprayer" was removed and replaced with "postponement ofprayer" 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 to deny him the ability to pray

was omitted.889 

III CENTCOM sent the Working Group's request for a list oftechniques to CITF-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.89o 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 up to 96 

hours of isolation; the use offemale interrogators to create "discomfort" and gain more 

information; sleep adjustment, defined as "four hours of sleep every 24 hours, not necessarily 

consecutive;" use ofindividual fears; removal of comfort items; use ofsafety 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 ofDefense for use at GTMO in December 2002. CITF-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 offive 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 ofmuzzled, trained, military working dogs;" and ''use oflight 

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. 

890 Church Report at 1g"/; Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques 

(January 24, 2003) at 1. 

891US Central Command Action Processing Form, Approvalfor the Use ofCertain Inte"ogation Techniques in 

CJTF-180's AOR (April 4, 2003); Memorandum from GEN John P. Abizaid to VADM Church, Responses to 

Requestfor Informotionfrom VADM Church (August 6,2004). 

892 Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at 1. 

m Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, 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. 

894 Secretary ofDefense Approval ofC01mter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002); Memo from LTC Robert 

Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24, 2003) at 1. 

89' Memo from LTC Robert Cotell to CENTCOM SJA, CJTF 180 Inte"ogation Techniques (January 24,2003) at I, 

4-5, and 9. 

896 Memorandum from GEN John Abizaid to VADM Church, Responses to Requestfor 1nformationfrom VADM 

Church (August 6, 2004). 

115
 
3. The Working Group Requests Informationfrom 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 ofDefense 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 behalfofthe 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 Chiefof 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. 

899 The Joint Staff action officer stated that they needed the infonnation 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). 

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 ofinvestigation and exposure ofthe 

organization. Mr. Witsch asked: 

What do you think is more than likely to happen when one ofthese 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. Witsch added: 

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. This is getting out of control! ,909 

905 Ibid. 

906 Ibid. 

907 Ibid. 

908 Ibid. 

909 Ibid. 

117
 
_ 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 ofthe Working Group, on SERE techniques, including physical pressures. 910 

B.	 Department ofJustice OffICe ofLegal Counsel's Analysis Is PresentedAs 

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 ofJustice'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 ofOperation 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) ifnot inherent and necessary to custodial conduct.916 

_The 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 ofLt 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 ofDefense allowed the Committee to review 

this document, but would not permit the Committee to keep a copy of the document. 

913_Detainee Interrogations: Survey ofLegal and Policy Considerations at 1-8. 

916 Ibid. at 10. 

118
 
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 ofpain 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 ofCategory 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 ofdomestic and internationallaw.,,922 Among the Working Group 

members there was a "great deal ofdisagreement" 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. 

920 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, 2(02) at 1. 

921 Mora, Statementfor the Record at 16; Hearing on the Nomination of William Haynes II to be u.s. Circuit Judge 

for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (July 11, 2(06) at 14. 

922 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ifthey 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 ofthe same conclusions as those ofthe 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. 

921 Mora, Statementfor the Record at 17. Other participants of the Working Group conftrmed that "in drafting the 

subject report and recommendations, the legal opinions ofthe [OLC] were relied on almost exclusively." Memo 

from Air Force Deputy JAG Jack Rives to Air Force General Counsel, Final Report andRecommendations 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). 

928 Mora, Statement for the Record at 17. 

929 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)"). 

930 Those canons included "the avoidance of constitutional difficulties, inapplicability of general criminal statutes to 

the conduct ofthe military during war, inapplicability of general statutes to the sovereign, and the speciftc governs 

the general." Yoo Memo (March 14, 2003) at 11-19. 

931 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 

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 ofbattlefield detainees would violate the Constitution's 

sole vesting ofthe 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 ofJustice could not enforce this law 

or any ofthe other [applicable] criminal statutes.,,935 According to the OLC, "[e]ven ifan 

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 

Y00 Memo (March 14, 2(03) at 25, 28, 62, 68. 

932 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. 

933 Y00 Memo (March 14, 2(03) at 2-6. 

934 Ibid. at 5. 

m Ibid. at 18. 

936 Ibid. 

937 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 159; In December 2003, Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith 

advised the Department ofDefense 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). 

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 ofthe 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 ewarticular 

conclusion[]" and the legal analysis was written to support that conclusion. 

C. Working Group Drafts Report Recommending Interrogation Techniques (ll) 

(U) When the Secretary ofDefense 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 ofinterrogation 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 

940 Mora, Statement/or 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, Statement/or the Record at 17. 

942 Committee staff interview ofRADM Jane Dalton (April 10, 2(08) at 173. 

943 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 

1. Haynes IT, Detainee Interrogations (January 15, 2003). 

!l46 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 ofphobias to 

increase levels of stress, deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli, environmental manipulation, 

sleep adjustment, prolonged standing, and deception. 949 In describing one ofthese 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 ofstress positions, sleep deprivation, enforced 

physical training. face slap/stomach slap, water immersion, walling, use ofwet towel on face or 

the "waterboard," use ofsmoke pipe, and use ofdrugs. 953 In describing these techniques, the 

Working Group draft made repeated reference to use ofthe 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 ofsmoke pipe ... is also 

used at the SERE School.,,9S4 

( According to JPRA's operating instructions, the purpose ofsubjecting 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 . fc . l' ,,956 requITes or stress mocu anon . .. 

_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. 

951 Ibid. at 28. 

952 Ibid. 

9'3 Ibid. 

9'4 Ibid. 

9'5 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 ofDefense two 

months earlier, on December 2, 2002. 

_Ofthe 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. 

9~9 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). 

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 oflegal 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 

127. 966" The report stated that use oftechniques 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. 

967 Church Report at 130;.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 ofthe technique. 

968 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). 

969 Thid. 

970 Church Report at 130; Working Group draft report (February 4, 2003). 971" 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 entire?, because it's embarrassing to have it in 

there and it's not reflective ofthe law. 97 

(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 ofreceiving 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 andRecommendations 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) US. 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 ofUS. POWs by their captors and raises questions about the ability ofthe 

U.S. to call others to account for mistreatment of US. 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 

US. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful" and use ofthe 

techniques will adversely impact "pride, discipline, and self-respect within the US. 

Armed Forces.,,981 

•	 (U) Authorization ofthe exceptional techniques will negatively impact US. and 

international public support and respect ofthe US. Armed Forces and could have a 

negative impact on the public perception ofthe US. military.982 

•	 (U) Authorization ofthe techniques will adversely impact "human intelligence 

exploitation and surrender offoreign enemy forces and cooperation and support of 

friendly 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)''). 

9T1 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)"). 

978 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, DraftReporl andRecommendations ofthe Wor/cing Group 

to Access IsicJthe 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)"). 

9'l9 Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (Feb 27, 2003); 

Romig to Walker (March 3, 2003). 

980 Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6, 2003); Lohr to Walker (February 6, 2003); 

Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27, 2003). 

981 Rives to Walker (February 6,2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27, 2003). 

982 Rives to Walker (February 5, 2003); Rives to Walker (February 6,2003); Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27, 

2003). 

98J Sandkuhler to Walker (February 27,2003). 

127
 
(U) According to DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, the Secretary of Defense met with 

participants ofthe 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 ofits 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 

D. 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 ofWilliam J. Haynes IT (April 25, 2008) at 263. 

985 Church Report at 5. 986_"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 ofthe 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 ofDefense 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 ofall 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). 

998 Memo from GEN Hill to Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, Information on Interrogation Techniques (March 

21,2003). 

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. 

E.	 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 ofthe 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 ofphysical pressures in an operational environment.,,1001 JPRA Chief of Staff 

Daniel Baumgartner told Maj Gen Fiscus that JPRA had previously provided information on 

techniques used in SERE schools to DoD Deputy General Counsel Richard Shiffrin. 1oo2 

F.	 The Working Group Finalizes Its Report and the Secretary ofDefense Issues a 

New Interrogation Policy For GTMO (U) 

IIOn March 28, 2003, the Secretary ofDefense met with a number of senior advisors 

including Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, and Chairman 

ofthe Joint Chiefs of StaffGen 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 ofhis 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 ofLt 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 ofDefense 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 ofthe Working 

Group. 1007 

(U) In fact, when it came to finalizing the report, some participants ofthe 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 ofNavy] 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 ofDefense 

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. 

1008 SASC Hearing (JWle 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). 

1009 Mora, Statementfor the Record at 20. 

1010 Ibid 

lOll Church Report at 137. 

IOU 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 ofDefense authorized the Commander of 

SOUTHCOM to use 24 interrogation techniques. 1014 Ofthe 24 techniques, four - Mutt and Jeff, 

incentive/removal ofincentive, 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 ofwhich 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) 

A. 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. 

1014 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, 

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 ofmistreatment -

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 

IIOn May 2, 2003, MG Miller directed the Director ofthe Joint Intelligence Group 

(JIG), John Antonitis, to "cease ofthe use ofthe '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 

I

· ·+~·t· " 1d2S ' tmll410ns. 

(U) A subsequent memorandum called "Historic Look at Inappropriate Interrogation 

Techniques Used at GTMO" criticized the Commander's inquiry. 1026 

II 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. 

1028 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). 

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. l033 

II 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 . 

IIThe same memo concluded that ''the incidents occurring during the Spring of 2003 

signif[ied] a consistent problem at GTMO.,,1035 It stated that it was "clear" that interrogators 

"may use several ifnot all ofthe techniques that require SECDEF notification.,,1036 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' ed ,,1038 bemgu liZ . 

• Other contemporaneous documents indicate that in addition to the use ofstrobe lights 

and loud music, techniques such as forced shaving, sensory deprivation and even implied threats 

1029 Ibid 

1030 Historic Look at Inappropriate Inte"ogation 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 

. .

B. 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 ofMohammed 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 ofthe FBI Special Agent 

1. JTF-GTMO Plansfor Interrogation ofSlahi (U) 

_ A memo dated on January 16, 2003 - the day after the Secretary ofDefense 

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 ofwhich 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"1

045 

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 ofFBI Special Agent (November 8,2007). 

1040 Memo, Methods and Approaches to Employ (U): Special Interrogation Operation ofISN760_ 

(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 perfmm 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. ,,1055 

2.	 JTF-GTMO FormaUy Submits Speciol 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. IOS6 In seeming contradiction to his May 2, 2003 order that the fear up harsh approach not 

be used in interrogations, the plan included many ofthe techniques described in the January 16, 

1047 Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03). 

1048 Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 63.(January 17, 2003); Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 

2003). 

1049 Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03). 

1050 Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 6311(January 17, 2003) 

1051 Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03), 

1052 Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03). 

1053 Methods EmployedX-Ray Interrogation ISN 631(January 17, 2003). 

1054 Ibid 

1055 Interrogation ofISN 760 (January 16, 2(03). 

1056 Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, Joint Interrogation Group, ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July I, 2003) 

(hereinafter "ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July 1, 2(03)"). 

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 ofinterrogation 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 

offofthe island. In reality, Slahi would be taken to Camp Echo where the interrogation was to 

continue. A memo describing that part ofthe 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 ofthe 

Khatani plan more than seven months earlier, the NCIS psychologist assigned to the CITF, Dr. 

Michael Gelles, had said that the idea ofinducing 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."I064 The practice ofshackling 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 ofsleep 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, Psy.D., 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 Jtme 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 _OnJuly 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 

IIOn 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 

approval. 

3. Interrogation Begins Before Special Interrogation Plan Is Approved (U) 

IISeveral memoranda for the record documenting Slahi's interrogation were written by 

JTF-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 

1070 Memo from Marshall Billingslea to Secretary of Defense, Mohamadou Walid Slahi. (July 

24,2003). 

1071 Ibid 

1072 Ibid 

1073 ISN 760 Interrogation Plan (July I, 2003) at 3. 

1074 Memo for Record, 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 

ofDrowning 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 warm.,,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."1

079 According to the memo, Slahi was ''visibly uncomfortable and showed signs 

offatigue. 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 

107' Memo for Record, G1MO-0598~OUH.AU4DOO OULD SLAB///(July 10, 2003). 

1076 Memo for Record, G1MO-0598~OUHAMADOO OULD SLAB///(July 17, 2003). 

1077 Memo for Record, G1MO-0598_0UHAMADOO OULD SLAB///(July 10, 2003). 

1078 Memo for Record, G1MO-0598~OUIi4MADOO OULD SLAB/// (July 11, 2003). 

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, G1MO-0598~OUH.AU4DOO OULD SLAB///(August 2, 2003). 

1083 DoJIG report at 123 

1084 Schmidt-Furlow Report at 25. 

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 ifshe 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) 

IIFive days after interrogators congratulated Slahi for his decision to '"tell the whole 

truth," the Secretary ofDefense 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. 109o 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 SIAHI// (September 8, 2003). 

1089 Ibid. 

1090 Email from JTF-G1MO IS2 to LT Richard Zuley and Capt Sean Wilson (August 21, 2003). 

1091 Ibid 

1092 JTF-G1MO Weekly Thematic Focus: September 29-0ctober 5,2003 and October 6-12 2003. 

1093 JTF-G1MO Weekly Thematic Focus: September 29-0ctober 5,2003; October 6-12 2003; 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 ofwhat little you have ...,,1095 . 

5. 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 ofdetainee abuse at GTMO and Afghanistan, 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 

6. 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 ofDefense 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). 

1100 Memo from LtCol Stuart Couch to Brigadier General Scott Black, Office o/Military Commissions Prosecution 

Operational Assessment (March 18, 2004). 

1101 Committee staff interview ofLtCol 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 rep~tGTMO had "finalized_plans."1103 According to the 

email, the objective,,-wasto "fracture_detainee resistance to cooperation and to 

induce detainees to be forthcoming during interrogations."ll04 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 . . . 60 da ,,1106 up VISit m ys. 

_ ( 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. 1108 The Committee is not aware, however, ofa 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 ofDefense in 

~GMiller'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 

1109 Church Report at 172. 

Miller to Commander U.S. Southern Cornman Re uest orApproval of 

(November 13, 2003) at 2­

'); Memo from M~Miller 

terrogation Plan (IP) for IS~

(November 13, 2003) at 2-3 (hereinafter "MG 

Miller, Requestfor Approval ofIPfor 

142
 
7.	 CITF Reissues Orderfor Agents to "Stand Clear" ofAggressive 

Interrogations (U) 

(D) 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.,,1l10 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. 1111 

8.	 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 ofDefense's April authorization, MG Miller 

notified GEN Hill ofITF-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. 

a.	 Special Interrogation Plan #3 (U) 

IllO DoD CITF', Memo for All Personnel Assigned to the DoD Criminal Investigative Task Force, Inte"ogation 

Procedures Guidance (U) (October 3,2003). 

1111 Ibid. 

liiiiiiIIiIuestforApproval ofIP for ,. MG Miller, RequestforApproval ofIPfor ISN

1113 MG Miller, Requestfor Approval ofIPfor at 2. 
b. 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. 
c.	 SOUTHCOM and OSD RecommendApproval ofSpecial 

Interrogation Pions #3 & #4 (U) 

_ On November 19,2003, General Hill sent the 

interrogation plans to the Secretary ofDefense. 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
 
IITom 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 ofDefense that he approve the plans.1132 A coordination sheet 

attached to that memo indicated that Daniel Dell'0110, 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 ofLegal Counsel 

(OLe) at the Department ofJustice 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.,,1135 

x.	 DOJ Office ofLegal Counsel Withdraws March 14,2003 Legal Opinion Governing 

DoD Interrogations (U) 

(U) In the final week of2003, the OLC notified the Department ofDefense 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" ofOLe opinions that his OLe 

colleague Patrick Philbin had identified, shortly after Mr. Goldsmith arrived at DoJ, as 

problematic and possibly containing "serious errors."ll37 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 . 

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 ofWilliam 1. Haynes II (April 25, 2008) at 295.
 

1136 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency at 153-54.
 

1137 Ibid. at 142; Committee staff interview ofJack Goldsmith (February 4, 2008).
 

1138 Committee staff interview of Jack Goldsmith (February 4, 2008); Sixth Decl. of Marilyn A. Dom, 56,
 

American CiviLLiberties Union, et aL v. Department ofDefense, et aL, No. 04~Civ. 4151 (January 5,2007).
 

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 

IINotwithstanding the late December direction from the head ofthe 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. 

1141 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). 

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
 
IIIContinuous 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 ofuninterrupted 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 interruption ofsleep 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 ofJustice 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 offour-hours of uninterrupted sleep 

using "Continuous cell transfer" or other means was not on the list of24 techniques OLC 

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 ofInterrogation Policy in Afghanistan (U) 

After the start ofOperation Enduring Freedom in October 2001,
 

d 10 ed a S ecial Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) to
 

Mghanistan 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. 

1149 DoJ IG Report at 183. 1130" 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 Wltil July 

26,2006. 

148
 
forces in Mghanistan at the end ofMay 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 ofdetainee 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 ofthe 

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 ofdaily 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, Request/or Approval ofCounter-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 [at Qa'ida] resistance techniques.,,1160 The briefmg 

proposed new interrogation techniques such as the use ofstrip 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 ofhoods, the use ofdogs, and environmental manipulation were 

among the interrogation techniques requested by GTMOY62 

_ 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 ofinterrogation operations at Bagram.1l63 With respect to operations at 

GTMO, the memo stated that "Due to a lack of effective national-level guidance, the GTMO 

staffis analogous to a weak. set ofparents 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] staffin seeking advice and training from the JPRA staffregarding 

effective interrogation techniques.,,1165 

_The 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 

1H7 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," which included techniques similar to those used in SERE programs. LTe 

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

lU8 Church Special Focus Team Report at 6. 

1H~Battlefield Exploitation Proposal (undated) at 2. 

1160 Ibid at 4. 

1161 Ibid at 5. 

1162 LTC Phifer to MG Michael Dunlavey, RequestforApproval ojCounter-Resistance Strategies. 

116.1 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."ll71 

_ 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.un 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].l173 

_ 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. 

B. The Deaths ofDilawar and Habibullah (U) 

(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. U69. 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'J Ibid. 
policy at Bagram, Army investigators concluded that the use ofstress positions and sleep 

deprivation combined with other mistreatment at the hands ofBagram personnel, caused or were 

direct contributing factors in the two homicides. 1174 In the wake ofthe deaths of Habibullah and 

Dilawar, CITF-180 and the SMU TF began developing written standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) for interrogations. 

C. Questions Raised About Task Force Participation in OGA Intt!n'ogations (U) _On 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 

TF personnel's participation in interrogations 1175 The 

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 ~redacted] personnel constitutes 'torture,'" it also 

stated that "another observer might disagree." 177 In addition, the memo stated that one ofthe 

[redacted].techniques "could rise to the level oftorture ifapplied in such a way and for such 

a period oftime that it rises to the level ofsevere 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.,,1180 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 to __
 

operating in a non-DoD facility, "U.S. military personnel remain subject to those
 

authorities if[military personnel] participate in or run the interrogations.,,1181 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 in Interrogation at _Detention Facility. 

1177 Ibid at 4. 

1178 Ibid. at 5. 

1179 Ibid. at 2. 

1180 Ibid. at 1. 

1181 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, 

_saidthat after the SMU TF SJA _mmander ofthe SMU 

TF "restricted personnel from further involvement_ 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. 1185 

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 Three ofthe four techniques approved 

by the SMU TF - isolation, stress positions, and multiple interrogators - were among those 

authorized by the Secretary ofDefense 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 24­

hour 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 ofhis statement to Church Report investigators, 

the SMU interrogator who drafted the SMU SOP reviewed GTMO's list ofrequested counterresistance techniques prior to draftin~ the SOP and discussed incorporating some ofthose 

techniques into the SMU's policy. 118 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 General, Response to Questionsfor the 

Record (U) (June 18, 2004). 

1185 Department ofDefense_Battlejield Interrogation Team Standing Operating Procedures (10 January 

2003); Church Special Focus Team Report at 7. 

1186 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). 

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 ofDefense Inspector General in 

2006 concluded that the SMU SOP "was influenced by the counter-resistance memorandum that 

the Secretary ofDefense 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 Gust before the SMU TF SOP was issued) said that 

the Secretary ofDefense'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 oflight and auditory stimuli, hooding, 20 hour 

interrogations, removal of clothing, and the use ofdogs 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]. Ifso incorporate those Category II techniques that are deemed 

necessary for [the SMU's] success.,,1195 

E. CJTF-180Produces Memorandum on Interrogation Techniques (U) 

_Following his January 15,2003 rescission ofauthority 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, LegalReview o.BattlefieldInterrogation Team & BIT 

SOP (January 11, 2(03) at 11 (hereinafter "Legal Review o~Battlefield Interrogation Team & BIT SOP 

(January 11, 2003)"). 

1193 LegalReview o.BattlefieldInterrogation Team & BIT SOP (January 11, 2003) at II. 

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 CITF-180 and, in response, the CITF-180 Deputy StaffJudge Advocate (SJA) LTC 

Robert Cotell produced a January 24, 2003 memo describing "current and past" interrogation 

techniques used byCITF-180 interrogatorsy98 LTC Cotell's memo was sent to the Working 

Group and to the Office ofthe Secretary ofDefense. 1199 

_ In his January 24, 2003 memo, LTC Cotell identified interrogation techniques 

used by CITF-180, including up to 96 hours ofisolation; the use offemale interrogators to create 

"discomfort" and gain more information; sleep adjustment, defmed as "four hours ofsleep 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 

_LTC Cotell's January 24,2003 memo also recommended use offive 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 ofmuzzled, trained, military working dogs;" and ''use oflight 

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. CITF-180 had obtained a list ofthose 

techniques prior to LTC Cotell drafting his January 24,2003 memo. 1202 

(U) ITF-GTMO's Interrogation Control Element (ICE) ChiefLt Col Ted Moss stated that 

sometime in January 2003, CPT Carolyn Wood, the Officer in Charge (OIC) ofthe Intelligence 

Section at the Bagram Collection Point asked ITF-GTMO about their "parameters" for 

interrogation. 1203 According to Lt Col Moss, the GTMO Operations Officer faxed the Secretary 

ofDefense's December 2,2002 memo authorizing interrogation techniques to CITF-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 VADMChurch (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. 

1202 Secretary ofDefense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002); CJTF 180 Inte"ogation 

Techniques (January 24, 2003). 

1203 Committee staff interview ofLt 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. 1205 

IIIn his January 24, 2003 memorandum, LTC Cotell, the CJTF-180 Deputy StaffJudge 

Advocate acknowledged that the Secretary ofDefense 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 ofDefense] 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 ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, requesting assistance in obtaining the 

Secretary ofDefense's a~R~oval of interrogation techniques requested by CJTF-180 in their 

January 24, 2003 memo. 

1204 Army!G, Interview ofCPT Carolyn Wood (August 15, 2006) at 15; Committee stafTinterview 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 Report at 6 for an unclassified accounting ofthe 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 Report at 11. 

1211 Memo for the Vice Chairman Joint Chief of Staff (April 11, 2003). 
.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 StaffJudge 

Advocate (SJA), that the Secretary ofDefense'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 ofDefense 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-180 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 oflight 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 Army 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 AlI_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. 

A. 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 ofOperation 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 ofDefense 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 ofIraq 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 ofdogs, governed 

1219 Notwithstanding 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 ofthe Geneva Conventions 

did not apply, would be authorized for all U.S. forces in Iraq. 

1DO Church Special Focus Team Report at 3. 

1221 11BITffi'Po&y (July IS, 2003). 

1m DoD IG, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2oo5)~eml Officer Questionnaire for
 

(June 29, 2004) at 2 (hereinafter Questionnaire (June 29, 2004)").
 

1223 DoD IG Report at 16. 

Church Special Focus Team Report at 12. 

158
 
use at Ba am in Af: anistan and at the SMU Task Force facility in Iraq. On June 8, 2003, the 

SMU interrogations in Ira~ from the start ofOperation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 until it was 

replaced later that year. 122 

2. OGA Comments on SMU TF Interrogation Techniques (U) 

_In May 2003, CAPT Dalton, Legal Counsel to the Chairman ofthe 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 

_The email requested that CENTCOM provide a list ofinterrogation techniques in 

Legal Advisor provided CENTCOM with a list of 

interrogation techniques in use by the SMU TF in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1227 lbat list included 

the presence ofmilitary 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 ofinterrogation 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 StaffLTG George Casey stating that "I have confmned 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 

3. 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 ofinterrogation
 

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 Task Forces" 

• Battlefield Interrogation Techniques (June 8, 2003); Church Special Focus Team Report at 12. 

1128~Memo from the_Legal Advisor to Staff Judge Advocate, USCENTCOM, Joint Task Forces• 

• attlefield Interrogation Techniques (June 8, 2003). 

1229 Ibid.; Church Special Focus Team Report at 12. 

1230 Message from CENTCOM Deputy Commander (June 10, 2003). 

1231 BITIFPolicy (July 15, 2003) at 1. 

159
 
presence ofmili~ 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. 

I F~03policy contained th~ftheSMU TF 

Commander_but was unsigned. 1234 ~told the Committee 

that he did not think he ever approved or even saw an interrogation policy. 1 35 He stated, 

however, that he was aware that the SMU TF used sleep deErvation, loud music, light control, 

isolation, "comfort positions," and military working dogs.1 

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

~st2003 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 

~erehe would print out a fresh copy ofthe policy every night and give it to 

~aide.The Legal Advisor said that he knew the Commander had received 

copies ofthe policy from his aide, but that he had a habit ofrepeatedly "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. 

II( 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.
 

1233 BITIF Policy (July 15, 2(03) at 5; Review ofDepartment 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.
 

1234 BITIF Policy (July 15, 2(03) at 3.
 

123! Committee staff interview of (October 11,2(07).
 

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 IF Legal Advisor 2 (March 12, 2008).
 

1239 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 oftime 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 

stripping 

stated that 

detainees 

he did not 

even 

know 

though 

where 

"arguably, 

the technique 

it was 

came 

an effective 

from and 

technique.,,1243 

that he was u~

_ 

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 ofstripping 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 ofthe implications of nudity in Arab culture. The Legal 

Advisor stated that the Commander nevertheless decided at the meeting that the SMU TF would 

continu~aninterrogation techni~Advisor stated that he 

thought_mayhave said that he~ouldhave to approve its 

use. 

lIIsoth LTG Ricardo Sanchez, the Commander ofCombined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), and COL Thomas Pappas, the Commander ofthe 20Sth Military Intelligence Brigade (20Sth 

MI BDE) in Iraq told the Committee that they were unaware ofwhat 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. 

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). 

1142 
SMU. 1248 COL Pappas recalled sending a second set of approximately two to four interrogators 

from the 20Sth MI BDE to the SMU TF around November 2003 to replace the 20Sth MI BDE 

personnel already serving at the SMU. 1249 

(U) According to LTG Sanchez, CITF-7 would have retained UCMJ authority over the 

interrogators and the interrogators would have been re~uired to conduct interrogations under the 

CITF-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 CITF-7 interrogation guidance. 12S1 

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

(U) The Iraq Survey Group was established in June 2003. According to its fIrSt 

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 ofthose 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 ofthings at Camp Crogper... some ofthe prisoners were alleging that they had 

been roughed up" by the SMU T~onstated that his Joint Interrogation and 

Debriefing Center (JIDC) Chie~haddescribed 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 ISO facilities in the first week in June 2003. 12SS At that time, a Chief Warrant Officer 

1148 USCENTCOM to CDR CJTF7, CFC FRAGO 09-278 Arabic Linguist Interrogator SupportlDTG 141543Z 

ruN 03 (June 14, 2003). 

1249 Committee staff interview ofCOL 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 323n1 MI BN (which was also providing interrogators to Abu Ghraib) whom he knew as he 

had trained some ofthem in Kuwait prior to the war. Committee staff interview of CWO Brian Searcy (June 4, 

2007). 

1150 Committee staffinterview ofLTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2007). 

1151 Committee staff interview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007). 

1151 DoD IG. Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25,2(05) at 10, 12, 19,30,52. 

1153 DoD IG, Interview ofMG Keith Dayton (May 25,2005) at 18. 

1154 Ibid. at 19. 

1155 Statement of (August 9, 2(04). 

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 ofprisoners (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 MG 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 himselflying on the floor ofthe Humvee.,,125S

(U) Throughout the summer and autumn of 2003, ISO personnel continued to be

concerned about the treatment ofdetainees 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

Camp Cropper note the [detainee's] condition.,,1259 _ said he wastold that the

detainee's "back was almost broken, his nose was probably broken, and he had two black eyes,

plus multiple contusions on his face.',1260

~g

IIAccording to the SMU TF Legal Advisor who served at the facility in July and

one ofthe nightly briefmgs held at the SMU TF Joint Operations Center,

_theSMU TF Commander, said "continue to work him over" and 66work him

hard" in reference to a particular detainee being interr~UTF. 1261 The Legal

Advisor said that about SO people were presentwhen_madethat statement, that

he (the Legal Advisor) was concerned about the message itco~subsequently

spoke to the Commander about it. The Legal Advisor said that~adea similar

statement on a video teleconference,

_ MG Dayton recalled that s

detainee mistreatment with him. According to MO Dayton, heard that

"rumors" ofdetainee mistreatment were cirCUlatilliili'n and "he wanted to set [MG Dayton'~nd

at rest,',1262 MO Dayton recalled that he spoke t a few times and that.

_toldhim "You're going to hear rumors, 1 sa -1 s al1 untrue,',1263

(U) In addition to al1egations 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.

1151 DoD 10, Interview orMO Keith Dayton (May 25, 2(05) at 20.

12J8 Ibid at 2I.

11511 Statement of (August 9, 2004) at 9.

1uoIbid.

1~1 Committee staffint.crview ofSMU TF Legal Advisor I (May 29, 2008).

1262 DoD 10, Interview of MO Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005) at 50.

1161 Ibid. at 29.

163
B. Interrogation Policies for 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 CITF-7 to address the requirements ofa Combined Joint Task Force operating at a 

"strategic, operational, and tacticallevel.,,1267 

(U) LTO Sanchez stated that by July 2003, it was evident "that CJTF-7 was engaged in a 

counterinsurgency operation that would be difficult ifnot impossible to win without significant 

1264 Email from to ISG Personnel (JWle 17, 2003). 

126' Email from to ISG Personnel (JWle 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 ofinterrogation 

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 ofthe 205th 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 briefLTG 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 

2. Interrogation Operations Begin at Abu Ghraib (U) 

(U) In mid-Summer 2003, the 205th 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. 

1171 Ibid. 

1272 Committee staffinterview ofLTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2001). 

1273 The cm-7 Commander, his senior staff, and division Commanders attended the meeting. Committee staff 

interview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2001). 

1274 Ibid. 

127~ Army IG, Interview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (August 24, 2006) at 6. 

1276 Committee staffinterview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2001). 

1277 DoD News Briefing (August 7, 2003). 

1278 Army IG, Interview ofCPT 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 ofstress 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. 1284 

3. 51VI' MI Battalion at Abu Ghraib Seeks Additional Guidance (U) 

(U) CPT Wood said that guidance for interrogators about the rules for interrogations was 

important because the interrogators in the 519th Battalion had come to Abu Ghraib with a range 

ofdifferent 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. 51VI' MIBNProposes Interrogation Policy (U) 

12'19 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). 

128' Sworn Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 3. Additionally, cm-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 ofthe Army Inspector General (October 2004) at 7. 

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 519th MI BDE.1 88 

IIMirroring the SMU TF policies, CPT Wood's proposed policy included sleep 

management, ''vary comfort positions" (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone), presence ofmilitary 

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 Wcod 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 teclmiques 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 itselfsolicited a "wish list" of 

interrogation techniques. 

5. 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 519th MI BN) requesting that they submit their 

"interrogation teclmiques 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 IG, Interview ofCPT Carolyn Wood (May 8,2006) at 10. The Interrogation orc 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 ofCPT 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 ChiefWarrant 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 BfflFPolicy (July 15, 2003) at 3. 

1290 SFIF Interrogation Policy (July 26, 2003) at 2. 

1291 Sworn Statement ofCPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4. 

1292 Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (August 15, 2006). 

1293 Army IG, Interview ofCPT Carolyn Wood (May 8,2006) at 10. 

1294 Email from CPT (P) William Ponce Jr. to CS165MI, 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 205th 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 staffto 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 ofharsher 

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 501st MI Battalion took 

issue with the language in CPT Ponce email, stating in an email ofhis 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). 

1300 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. 

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 ofstaying on the high ground. We need to stay there. 1301 

6.	 Interrogation Ole at Abu Ghraib Resubmits the Proposed Interrogation 

Policyfor 519'" 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 , '1 1302

response to CPT P once s emal . 

_ 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 

management ..1303 The proposed interrogation 

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 cm-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 (SF/F) Detainee Interrogation Policy (August 27, 2003) at 4. 

1304 Ibid 

1305 Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (May 8, 2006) at 4; Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn 

Wood (February II, 2007). 

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. 

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

1. Special Mission Unit Task Force in Iraq Seeks Assistancefrom JPRA 

(U) 

_ In the summer of2003 the Commander ofthe Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task 

Force (TF) in Iraq, called the Commander ofJPRA, 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 

1ar~1309 On August 27, 2003, 

for three weeks to "provide assistance to current interro ation efforts ofke . value 

_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~iningor experience, he had 

previously conducted interrogation-related training for",-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 Commanding Officer, JPRA (Septem~fter "McCue, 

Results!!Ilnterview with Colonel Moulton'''); Committee staff interview of__._(October 10, 

2007).•The Chief ofthe 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 ofChris Wirts (January 4, 2007). 

Priority Message, RequestJPRA Assistance in Interrogation Support, Date 

Time Group (DTG) 252059Z AUG 03 (August 25, 2003). 

1309 Ibid 

~toHQ JPRA, Interrogator Support, DTG 272054Z AUG 03 (August 27, 2003); HQ 

_toCDR USJFCOM, RequestforInterrogator Support, DTG 271004Z AUG 03 (August 27,2(03). 

170
 

1308 
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 ofoptions 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" ofoperations 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 . 

2.	 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 ofJPRA's 

1311 Details of the three-week JPRA trip to Iraq are reflected in trip reports that Lt Col Kleinman and Mr. Russell 

submitted ><upon 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 

131' Ibid at 1-2. 

1316 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). 

171
 
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 Mouhon 

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) 

1322 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.) 

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 

3.	 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 ofsuccess 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 

Comm_and discussed expectations for the JPRA 

team. 1334 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 ofLt Col Steven Kleinman (February 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 Trip Report at 2. 

1m Ibid 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 ofthose 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 ofSERE school 

physical pressures in those interrogations. Col Moulton confIrmed that the team's understanding 

ofhis guidance was correct. 1336 

4. JPRA Team Authorizedto 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. 

~oconfIrm and inquire about the new request.,,1339 In s~sand 

communications, Col Moulton has consistently stated that he relayedllllllllllllll.request 

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 ofthe 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. 

1338 Committee staff interview ofRandy Moulton (June 19, 2007); Committee staff interview of Randy Moulton
 

(November 26, 2007)
 

1339 McCue, Results o/Interview with Colonel Moulton at 1. 

1340 McCue, Results o/Interview 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. 

1341 Email from Randy Moulton to DoD IG (June 30, 2006) at 3. 
_ 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 ChiefofHuman 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 of RADM 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
 
IIThe J-2X stated that he was unsure iftechniques taught to the staff were pennitted 

under SMU TF policy and that, after the JPRA demonstration, he raised this matter with the 

SMU TF J2, which at the time was 1352 

5. 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). 

1353 Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 102-103, 106. 

1354 Russell Trip Report. 

1355 SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008). 

1356 Ibid 

1357 Ibid. 

ms Russell Trip Report. 

1359 Ibid at 5; Kleinman Trip Report at 2-3. 

176
 
2X1360 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]ourjudgment 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 ofthe other two members ofJPRA 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 

IIIn 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 ofkneeling 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 anythinywrong 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 ofany 

operating instructions that would have permitted an interrogator to repeatedly slap a detainee. 1368 

III 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" ofwhat 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. 

• 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 3,2007) at 104-105. 

1368 Committee staff interview of SMU TF J2X (February 5, 2008). 

1369 Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3,2007) at 103. 

1370 Ibid at 104. 

1371 Ibid at 111-12. 

1372 Ibid at 126-27. 

1373 Ibid. at 123. 

1374 Ibid. 

178
 
6. JPRA Team Authorizedto 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 ofSERE techniques "were violations ofthe Geneva Convention, they 

weren't authorized, 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 

7. 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 ofthe 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 ofhis concerns about the legality ofthat 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 ofthese 

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 ofJPRA 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 [JPRA methods] (with the use ofcertain 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 

_Mr. Russell also described the TF Legal Advisor's briefing in his trip report: 

1384 Russell Trip Report at 2. 

1385 Ibid 

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 ofthe 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 ofCommon 

Article 3 ofthe Geneva Conventions applied to those detainees under the control ofthe SMU 

TFY94 

8. 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 ofthe 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 holdin8cell. 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 staffinterview of SMU IF Legal Advisor 2 (March 12, 2008). 

1m SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008). 

1396 Russell Trip Report at 2-3. 

1397 Kleinman Trip Report at 3. 

1398 Testimony ofTerrence 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 

members that he disagreed with their approach. 1407 Mr. Russell stated that the exploitation 

scenario was conducted after coordination with the J-2X staffand 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 

9. 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 ofsleep.,,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 ofTerrence 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 Sleep1413 

(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 ofsleep 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 ofstanding 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 ofEngagement] for detainee handling.,,141 

1412 Committee staffinterview 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. 

1413 Untitled Photograph taken by Lt Col Steven Kleinman, (September 2003). 

1414 Ibid 

141' Committee staff interview ofLt 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 12­

X. Russell Trip Report at 3. 

1417 Ibid 

1418 Ibid. at 4. 

1419 Ibid. 

183
 
10. JPRA Develops a Concept ofOperations (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 ofa 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 

(U) 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 ofOperations 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 to_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) 

1421_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 ofLt Col Steven Kleinman (March 14, 2008). 

1425 SASC Hearing (September 25, 2008). 

1426 Russell Trip Report at 4. 

1427 Con~perations For HVF Exploitation (Undated), attachment to JPRA, Executive Summary ofJPRA 

Support _ (undated) (hereinafter ....concept 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 memorandum 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 

coo eration of the HVT 

process for the HVT team to offer concessions for validated information or 

_ 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 

1433 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 StaffJudge Advocate (SJA), on September 23, 2003. 1435 

1430.Concept ojOperations For HVI Exploitation - Version 1. 

1431 Ibid. (noting that "HVT exploitation operations will be conducted within the intent of U.S. policy and law, [in 

accordance with] U.S. interpretation as identified" in the March 6,2003 Working Group report.) 1432_Concept ojOperations 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 

team removed 1439 The Legal Advisor said that he met with the SMU TF 

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 oftheir 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 ofthe JPRA HVT 

exploitation CONOP was sent to CAPT Donovan, the JFCOM SJA1443 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 ofunlawful 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 armed 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 POWs or CIs in Iraq. 1445 

_Inediting 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 ofDefense 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 ofEngagement 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 ofDefense 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 ofa scheduled visit by the two to JPRA1449 CAPT Donovan stated that while it 

made "a certain amount ofsense 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 ofResponsibilityl, 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 ofEvents in Iraq (U) 

(U) In May 2004, the Department ofDefense (DoD) Inspector General (lG) initiated a 

review ofDoD 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 ofthe JFCOM inquiry was narrow, 

focusing only on whether or not the incidents described in Lt Col Kleinman's trip report had 

Concept ojOperations For 

HVT Exploitation at 6 (hereinafter "Concept ojOperations For HVT Exploitation-Version 2"). 

1447 Concept ojOperations 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] ofthe 

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 

D. Major General Geoffrey MilJer 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 ofDefense (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 an~hing 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 IG Meeting on DoD 10 

Inquiry to USJFCOM of27 May 2005 (September 23,2005) 

1455 Ibid 

1456 Committee staff interview ofLTG 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 ofDefense 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 ofDefense 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 

2. 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 ofhis 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 CITF-7 Director ofIntelligence, 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 205tb Military Intelligence Brigade (August 24, 2004) at 57 (hereinafter "Fay Report"). 

1459 Fay Report at 57. 

1460 Allegations ofMistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Anned Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg.
 

108-868 (May 7, 2004, May 11, 2004) at 41,98.
 

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
 
3. 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 ofmass destruction (WMD) or evidence ofweapons 

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 

146' 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." 

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, 1said these are the fmdings, if you don't agree with them, let's you and 1go 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. at 52. 

1468 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 

the idea ofimplementing such techniques. _ an ISG strategic debriefer said that he 

wrote a letter to his chain of command stating that he would resign ifthe techniques were 

d 1474 

unp . Iemente 

(U) LtCol Rapuano said that he met with MG Miller and members ofhis 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 ofsleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. 

(U) At the end ofthe 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 ofMG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007); Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller for 

Javal Davis trial (August 21,2004). The former JTF-GlMO ICE ChiefDavid Becker, who was present during the 

ISG visit did not recall the MG Miller using the term UGlMO-ize." Committee staff interview ofDavid Becker 

(September 17, 2007). 

1472 Committee staff interview 0 f MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007). 

1473 Committee staff interview ofMike 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 

4. GTMO Team VISits Special Mission Unit Task Force (U) 

II 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~UTF 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 ofhis team met with~

and a few ofhis 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~ingwith MG Miller, SMU TF Legal Advisors 

had tried, without success, to get _ to sign an interrogation policy for the facility 

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

t 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 6,2007). 

1481 DoD IG, Interview of MG Keith Dayton (May 25, 2005) at 34~ Committee staff interview of LTG Keith Dayton 

(June I, 2007). 

1482 Committee staffinterview o_COctober 10,2007). 

1483 Committee staff interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (December 6, 2007). 

1484 Ibid 

1485 See Section XII A, supra. 

1486 Sworn Statement ofLTC Diane Beaver (December 10, 2004) at 1. 

1487 Committee staff interview ofLTC Diane Beaver (November 9,2007). 

193
 
her that he was "risking his life" by talking to her about these issues. 1488 LTC Beaver told the 

Committee that the SMU~idhe had also raised these issues with the Commander 

ofthe SMU TF, but that was not receptive to his concerns. 

IILTC 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 

5. 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 20Sth MI BDE Commander, conversations with MG Miller focused on 

the range ofintelligence 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 

1493 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 10, 12, 15. 

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 ofintelligence 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.1500 

(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. 1501 That proposed policy included presence ofmilitary working dogs, stress 

positions, sleep management, 20-hour interrogations, isolation, and yelling, loud music, and light 

control. 1502 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 

ofwhat's approved for use in [GTMO].,,1503 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 ofCOL 

Marc Warren, the CITF-7 SJA and recommended that he review it 1504 

(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 ofCPT 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 ofLTC 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 ofdogs." 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 ofdogs 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 IfF-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 IfF-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 ofthe 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 320th 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 ofDavid Becker (September 22,2(05) at 25. 

1506 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 ChiefDavid Becker, but did not recall ifthe 

use of dogs came up in those discussions. Committee staff interview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2(07). 

1507 Anny IG, Interview ofCOL Thomas Pappas (April 12, 2006) at 10. 

1508 Memorandum from COL Thomas Pappas to LTG Ricardo Sanchez, Exception to c.rrF-7 Interrogation and 

Counter Resistance Policy (December 14, 2003). 

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 ofsecurity operations and force protection.,,1517 MG Miller said, however, that he did 

not discuss the use ofdogs at all with BG Janis Karpinski, the Commander ofthe 800th MP BDE 

or anyone else in her unit, which was responsible for security operations and force protection at 

the prison. ISIS 

6.	 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 ofDefense'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 

1m Ibid 

1514 Ibid 

ljlj Ibid at 21. 

1516 Army!G, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (October 20,2005) at 71. 

1m Ibid 

1'18 Ibid at 73. 

lH9 Ibid at 69. 

mOIbid 

all Ibid 
(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 

Afghanistan. 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 

wor hi' "IS23 k 10. t 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 

7. JTF-GTMO Assessment Team Produces Trip Report (U) 

_ At the conclusion ofthe assessment trip, MG Miller produced a trip report that 

described the team's fmdings. 1S27 The trip report echoed what the ITF-GTMO Commander had 

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 

8. 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 briefsenior 

Department of Defense officials on his assessment visit and the report. MG Miller told the Army 

Inspector General (IG) that the briefing took place in October and was attended by Deputy 

Secretary ofDefense 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, followinf 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 

ofintelligence from Iraq through and in interrogations."m8 

B30 Fay Report at 59. 

1'31 Army IG, Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller (June 28,2005) at 5,8. 

in2 Ibid at 4. 

in3 Army IG, Interview of MG Geoffrey Miller (October 20, 2005) at 82. 

13:J4 Allegations of Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg. 

108-868 (May 11, 2004) at 339. 

B3' Ibid at 371. 

1'36 Allegations of Mistreatment of Iraqi Prisoners, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 108th Congress, S. Hrg. 

108-868 (May 19, 2004) at 594. 

in7 Interview ofMG Geoffrey Miller for Javal Davis trial (August 21,2004) at 3. 

in8 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. 

E.	 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 1ra:J and that Coalition 

Forces "will continue to treat all persons under their control humanely.,,15 LTG Sanchez stated 

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 ofapproaches 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 ofDefense'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 

2.	 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). 

1~48 The September 14, 2003 policy also included "Mutt and leff," which was part of the 1987 version of Army FM 

34-52, but not the 1992 version ofthe Army Field Manual 34-52. CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance 

Policy (September 14,2003). 

1549 CJTF_7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003); Statement ofLTG Ricardo Sanchez 

(October 2004) at 8. 

mo Statement ofCPT 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 ofstatus (security detainees, civilian internees, or EPWs).,,1555 Use of other 

approaches authorized by the September 14,2003 CITF-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 CJTF-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 CJTF-7. 

CPT Wood acknowledged that she may have used the wrong policy as a basis for her IROE. 1558 

3. 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 ofguidance 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 ofthe essence" so he "decided to publish the September 

memorandum knowing that discussions were ongoing as to the legality ofsome ofthe 

approaches included in the memorandum.,,1560 

m3 Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 4. 

1554 Memorandum for Record, CJI'F-7 Interrogation Rules ojEngagement (October 9, 2003) (hereinafter "CJTF-7 

Interrogation Rules ojEngagement (October 9, 2003)"). 

1m Ibid 

1556 CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 10,2003). 

1m CJTF-7 Interrogation Rules ojEngagement (October 9, 2003). 

ms Committee staff interview of CPT Carolyn Wood (February 11,2008); CJTF-7 Interrogation and CounterResistance Policy (September 10, 2003). 

m9 Committee staff interview ofLTG Ricardo Sanchez (December 20, 2007). 

1560 Ibid; Statement ofLTG Ricardo Sanchez (October 2004) at 8, 12. 

202
 
_ LTG 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 CJTF-7 SJA, stated that the CENTCOM SJA "raised concerns to us that the policy was 

objectionable in that aspects ofthe approved approaches were impermissibly coercive.,,1563 

IIOn 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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 conformity 

with the [Field Manual] ... I would hesitate to put in writing how we are directing 

interrogations beyond what is in the [Field Manual]. If CJTF-7 wants to take 

advantage of the additional measures used at Guantanamo, 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. 

1~ 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 Ricc~ and William Hammill (September 17, 

2003). 
believe we should still seek SECDEF approval- and I am doubtful some ofthese 

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 

_LTG Sanchez said that after CJTF-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 oh, 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 

4. CJTF-7Issues 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 ofauthorized techniques included dietary manipulation, environmental 

manipulation, sleep adjustment, false flag, presence ofmilitary working dogs, sleep 

management, stress positions, and yelling, loud music, and light control. 1573 CJTF-7 also 

removed isolation and added "segregation" to the new policy. The October 12,2003 policy 

1568 Email from MN Carrie Ricci to COL Marc Warren, COL Fred Pribble, and William Hammill (September 16, 

2(03). 

1569 Email from MN Carrie Ricci to William Hammill (September 17, 2003). 

m'OIbid 

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. 

1573 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, 205tb Military Intelligence Brigade, c.rrF-7 Interrogation andCounter-Resistance Policy 

(October 12, 2(03) (hereinafter "c.rrF-7 Interrogation andCounur-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003)"). 

204
 
stated that the CITF-7 Commanding General had to approve se~egation in all cases exceeding 

"30 days in duration, whether consecutive or nonconsecutive.,,1 74 

(U) CITF-7 removed ''the presence ofmilitary dogs" from the list ofinterrogation 

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 interro~ations, 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 ofunmuzzled dogs in the conduct of 

interrogations.,,1576 LTG Sanchez acknowledged that placement of "presence ofmilitary 

working dogs" in the interrogation techniques section ofthe September 14 policy was 

"confusing.,,1577 He said that he removed the "presence ofmilitary working dogs" from the list 

ofinterrogation techniques in the October policy and put it in the general safeguards section to 

make it "clear that using dogs for the deliberate purpose offrightening a detainee was not 

pennitted.,,1578 

(U) LTG Sanchez stated that "It is certainly clear under the October 2003 policy that the 

use ofmilitary 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 ofmuzzled 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 ofEngagement 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 ofstatus."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 ofLTG 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"ogation Rules 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 

F. 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. 

1585_estionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 2. 

1586. 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). 

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
 
~gbeen 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 ofmilitary working dogs.,,1590 

_ There is evidence that at least one te~notin the SOP - removal of 

clothing - was in use at the SMU TF in late 2003. _statedthat when he took 

command in October 2003, he "discovered that some ofthe detainees were not allowed clothes" 

as an interrogation technique ,1591 He said that he did not 

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 wh~

JPRA team ofinstructors 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 ofsadistic, 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 ofdetainee 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. 

H91 Church Special Focus Team Report atl3; Questionnaire (June 29,2004) at 3. 

1'92 Questionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 3.
 

1'93 Testimony of Terrence Russell (August 3, 2007) at 117.
 

l'I)4.Ibid
 

1'9' Ibid.
 

1'96 Questionnaire (June 29, 2004) at 3. 

1'97 MG Antonio Taguba, Article 15-6 Investigation ofthe 80rf' Military Police Brigade (hereinafter "Taguba 

Report'') at 16. 

1'98 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 ofthe 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 ofaggressive interrogation techniques like use ofmilitary 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 ofsome ofthese 

techniques was widespread at Abu Ghraib. 

A. Use ofMilitary Working Dogs (U) 

(U) The use ofmilitary working dogs to exploit detainee fears was authorized on 

December 2,2002 by the Secretary ofDefense for use at Guantanamo Bay. 1601 Weeks later, the 

technique appeared in a January 24,2003 memorandum from CITF-180's Deputy StaffJudge 

Advocate (SJA) and was subsequently considered available for use in Mghanistan.1602 The use 

ofdogs 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 

(U) The dog teams arrived at Abu Ghraib on November 20,2003.1605 According to MG 

Fay's report, "abusing detainees with dogs started almost immediately after the dogs arrived" 

with the first incident occurring on November 24,2003.1606 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 7. 

1600 Ibid at 8. 

1601 Secretary ofDefense 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 

IICOL Pappas, the Commander ofthe 20Sth 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 ofit going to him.,,1610 LTG 

Sanchez said that no request for the use ofdogs 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.,,1615 

(U) On February 19,2004, after MG Taguba had begun his investigation into the abuses 

at Abu Ghraib, the Commander ofthe 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 at 85-87. 

1608 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). 

1616 Memo from COL Foster P Payne II for Joint Interrogation and Debriefmg Center, Suspension o/Use o/Military 

Working Dogs (February 19, 2004). 

209
 
B. Stress Positions and Physical Training (U) 

(U) Stress positions were authorized for use in interrogations at GTMO by the Secretary 

ofDefense on December 2, 2002. 1617 The technique was used in interrogations in Afghanistan in 

2002 and 2003.1618 Stress positions were also authorized for use at the SMU TF in Iraq. 1619 

(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 CITF-7 policy explicitly authorized the use of stress positions. 1620 CPT Wood's October 9, 

2003 Interrogation Rules ofEngagement (IROE) for interrogators listed stress positions as an 

approved technique. 1621 While the October 12,2003 CITF-7 policy removed stress positions 

from the list ofauthorized 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 ofthe Hard Site at Abu Ghraib stated that military intelligence made detainees engage in 

physical training and he saw "detainees holding buckets, arms 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 ofDefense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2,2002). 

1618 U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Bagram Branch Office Memo, CID Report ojInvestigationFINAL -0134-02-CID36923533 (October 8, 2004). 

1619 DoD IG Report at 16. 

1620 CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003); Army IG, Interview of CPT Carolyn 

Wood (August 15, 2(06) at 30. 

1621 Cn'F-7 Interrogation Rules ojEngagement (October 9, 2003). 

1622 CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003); Cn'F-7 Interrogation Rules oj 

Engagement (October 16, 2003). 

1623 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 ofstress 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 

wltnesse . d f h hni 1634 use 0 t e tec que. 

C Removal ofClothing (U) 

(U) Removal of clothing was authorized by the Secretary ofDefense 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 

IIThe 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). 

1632 Ibid 

1633 Statement ofM! soldier (June 4,2004).
 

1634 Statement of interrogator (June 4, 2004).
 

1635 Secretary ofDefense Approval of Counter-Resistance Techniques (December 2, 2002).
 

1636 Fay Report at 88; Church Report at 7
 

211
 
1637 

said he tenninated the practice in December 

2003 or January 2004.1638 

(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 ofdetainees.,,1640 His 

report identified several specific incidents of detainees being stripped or partially stripped at the 

direction ofinterrogation 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 

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. 

1644 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. 

164' Statement of Intelligence Analyst (May 25, 2004). 

1646 Statement ofMI 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 Ptermitted 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 ofa 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.,,1655 

D. Sleep Adjustment!Sleep Management (U) 

(U) On December 2,2002, the Secretary ofDefense authorized the use of20 hour 

interrogations at GTMO. 1656 

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 Afghanistan. 1657 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 cOW1Sel. 

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). 

1653 Statement ofM! soldier (June 4, 2004). 

1654 Ibid 

1655 Statement of M! soldier (July 20. 2004). 

1656 Secretary ofDefense 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
 
ofsleep during [a] 24 hour period" - the same way that CITP-180 had described "sleep
 ,,' Afi'nl.· 1658
 d· a ~ustment In O',amstan. .

(U) The September 14, 2003 CITP-7 policy authorized both sleep management and sleep 

adjustment for interrogations, defining the former as "adjusting the sleep times ofa detainee" 

and the latter as "4 hours ofsleep per 24 hour period,,1659 CPT Wood's October 9,2003 IROE 

also listed both "sleep adjustment" and "sleep management" as approved techniques. 1660 CITP7'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], CITP-7 prior to employment.,,1662 

(U) MG Pay's report stated that the "'sleep adjustment' technique was used by [military 

intelligence] as soon as the Tier 1A block opened" at Abu Ghraib. 1663 Interviews ofMI and MP 

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 ofthose 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 ofan 

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 ofdetainee.,,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."I666 

(U) COL Jerry Philabaum, 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 all_ Personnel, SUBJECT: Policy No. 1- Battlefield Interrogation Team and
 

facility (BIT/F) Policy (July 15, 2003).
 

16'9 CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (September 14, 2003). 

1660 CJ]'F-7 Inte"ogation Rules o/Engagement (October 9, 2003). 

1661 CITF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy (October 12, 2003). 

1662 CJ]'F-7 Inte"ogation Rules o/Engagement (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 Ml needed our assistance with detainees, they did their request through 

memorandums. The memorandums would dictate what Ml 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 MI 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 

E. 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. 

1671 Statement of CPT Carolyn Wood (December 17, 2004) at 6. 

1672 Ibid 

167J Committee staff interview of COL Thomas Pappas (October 12, 2007). 

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 ofCOL 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 

oflight and noise deprivation" (not limited to living areas) be approved for im~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 

priorto 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 atAbu Ghraib 

1. RetiredArmy Intelligence OffICei' Leads Assessment Team (U) 

(U/ In November 2003, Terry Ford, the Army Assistant Chiefof Stafffor 

Intelligence (G-2) and BG Barbara Fast, the CITF-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/HUMlNTEvaluation 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 from_ 

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. 

2. 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 ofthe 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 ofinterro~atorsand 

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 ofDefense Office ofInspector 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 ofCIIHUMINTEvaluation 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 

3. 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 retired Army Colonel had been told by _ the former ISG JIDC Chief, prior to 

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 source_told me' before I deployed about what he 

observed concerning mistreatment; 2) The statement ofthe 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 

4. 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/HUMINTEvaluation Visit (December 12, 2003) at 7. 

1700 Herrington to Fast, Report ojCI/HUMINTEvaluation 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 StaffJudge 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.,,17o VADM Church called the 

failure to more thoroughly investwate 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 ofmost 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. 

A. 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 .OnFebm Commander, issued 

an interrogation policy for using the September 14,2003 CJTF-7 policy as its basis 

and authorizing the use ofaggressive interrogation techniques, including the presence ofmilitary 

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 ofLIC Michael Black (November 3,2004). 

1714 See Section XU E, supra. 

171j _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 ofpower 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) 

II ( The Department ofDefense 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 ofD.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 

C. 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 ofIntelligence, 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. 

1723 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. 1729 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 

D. 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 ofmuzzled 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 ofinterrogation techniques outside ofFM 34-52 than the SOPs 

ofany 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 

172S1 cm-180 SJA Memorandum for Record, CTJ'F-180 Detainee Operations Standard Operating Procedures 

(March 27, 2004). 

1730 Ibid 

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 

1m 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 

_( 

sent a messa e to 

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 ofscenery.1742 The request . 

1737 Memorandum from General John Abizaid, Responses to Request for Information from VADM Church (August
 

6,2004).
 17Ja" See Department ofDefense Headquarters, Joint Task Force 121 (ITF-121), Baghdad Air Base, Iraq
 

CITF-121 Battlefield Interrogation facilityrrearn Standard Operating Procedures.
 

17J9 Message from Commander_to Commander DTG 231006Z MAY 04 (May 23,
 

2004) at 1.
 

1740 Ibid (emphasis in original).
 

1741 Ibid. at 1. 

223
 
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 normal 

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 ofslerE management, environmental manipulation, 

separation, and change ofscenery for the SMU TF. 1 45 He delegated the approval authority for 

the use ofthose techniques to the "fIrst general officer in the chain of command," and specifIed 

that none ofthe 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 of command.,,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 Wirts, the Chief ofJPRA'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 Stafffor 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 

174'.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 ofhooding." 

Memorandum from General John Abizaid to Commander, Request/or Use 

a/Interrogation Techniques, Dated 27May 2004 (June 4,2004). 

1746 Ibid 

1747.Emai1 from Christopher Wirts to Thomas Markland, John Huffstutter, 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 J2X 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 S01igan, 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 ofalternate approaches to meet ·· b' . ,,1749 expIOltatlOn 0 ~ectlves.

_That same day, JPRA personnel briefed JFCOM Deputy Commander LTG Wagner, 

JFCOM Chiefof StaffMaj 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 

was "requested to support [Defense Intelligence Agency]," 

GTMO, Fort Huachuca, and ,,1751 

III( 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 ofOperations 

(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.. 

CONOP did not, however, reflect all ofthe SJA's edits. For example, 

The A:f: 'stan 

1748 Message from CENTCOM, Request for USJFCOM Support, DTG: 121729Z May 04 (May 12, 2004). 

1749 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 al., attaching 

Briefing Slides and Executive Summary with Iraq CONOP; Committee staff interview of Christopher Wirts (January 

4,2007). 

1752 As part ofthe briefmg materials, an executive summary ofthe 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 ofE~entor Standard Operating Procedure]," "lack oftraining and preparation," and "lack 

of information sharing." _ See Executive Summary; see also Briefing Slides at 5-8. 

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 oftechniques we found most effective against our personnel. Our intent is to provide 

a prioritized list ofwhat 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 Afghanistan 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 II W~er and MG 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 the" 

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). 

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. 1 can only say that in my opinion, that argument does not pass 

the "Washington Post test." 1 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 1 frankly don't believe that's the kind of advice we 

should be giving to the U.S. side. 1 see great potential for theater personnel to do 

it wrong, and to then say, "well JPRA said this was what we should do.,,1759 

II( 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: 

1 [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, 1 recommend you consider NOT having JPRA get 

involved in this aspect ofCENTCOM'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, iftheater 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 

ifthey are in any way implicated in the current mess in Ira~."1763 JPRA's planned May 

2004 mission to Afghanistan was subsequently called off1 64 

B.	 CENTCOM Makes Another Requestfor JPRA Interrogation Assistance in 

Afghanistan (U) 

• 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 ofOperations (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, DTG: 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). 

1769 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 ILLEOAL 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 Oen 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 Oiambastiani.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 

II 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 

II As Col Rollins's comments were circulated at JFCOM, LtCol Richard Posey, one of 

the JFCOM JAOs added that "[i]t would be difficult to come up with a stronger argument against 

concurring in this request.,,1775 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). 

1771_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). 

1m 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. l777 

c:	 U.S. Joint Forces Command Issues Policy Guidance For JPRA "Offensive" 

Suppon(U) 

..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 Moulton 

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. Ifthe message 

is to relay that we won't play in "offensive" ops - that has been received loud and 

1776 Ibid 

1m Committee staffinterview Christopher Wirts (January 4. 2008). 

1778 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 ofJPRA 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 ofJPRA 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 ofJPRA 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 JPRA 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