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

48–396 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–849 

U.S. INTERROGATION POLICY AND EXECUTIVE 

ORDER 13440 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

OF THE

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER BOND, Missouri, Vice Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio 

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio 

ANDREW W. JOHNSON, Staff Director 

LOUIS B. TUCKER, Minority Staff Director 

KATHLEEN P. MCGHEE, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Missouri ....... 1 

WITNESSES 

Statement of Lieutenant General Charley Otstott, U.S. Army, Ret. .................. 2 

Statement of Colonel Steven Kleinman, U.S. Air Force Reserve, Educing 

Information Study Senior Advisor ...................................................................... 4 

Statement of Allen S. Keller, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, New 

York University School of Medicine; Director, Bellevue/NYU Program for 

Survivors of Torture; Member, Advisory Council, Physicians For Human 

Rights .................................................................................................................... 9 

Statement of Elisa Massimino, Washington Director, Human Rights First ...... 16 

Statement of Professor Robert F. Turner, SJD, Center for National Security 

Law, University of Virginia School of Law ........................................................ 37 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Prepeared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia ....................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Steven Kleinman ................................................. 6 

Statement of Allen S. Keller ................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement of Elisa Massimino ............................................................... 19 

Prepared Statement of Professor Robert F. Turner .............................................. 39 

Statement of the American Psychological Association Concerning Psychology 

and Interrogations ............................................................................................... 87 

Statement of Rev. George Hunsinger on Behalf of the National Religious 

Campaign Against Torture Concerning CIA Interrogation Techniques .......... 91 

(1) 

U.S. INTERROGATION POLICY AND 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13440 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 3:40 p.m., in Room 

SH–219, Hart Senate Office Building, the Honorable Christopher S. 

Bond (Vice Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Committee Members Present: Senators Bond, Feinstein, and 

Whitehouse. 

Committee Staff Members Present: Andy Johnson, Staff Director; 

Louis Tucker, Minority Staff Director; Michael Davidson, General 

Counsel; Kathleen McGhee, Chief Clerk; Randy Bookout, Eric 

Chapman, Tom Corcoran, John Dickas, Melvin Dubee, Evan 

Gottesman, David Grannis, Andrew Kerr, Paul Matulic, Don 

Mitchell, Eric Pelofsky, Mike Pevzner, Jacqueline Russell, Michal 

Schafer, Alissa Starzak, Greg Thielmann, and Jim Wolfe. 

Vice Chairman BOND [presiding]. This hearing will come to 

order. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Unfortunately, the Chairman has been called away for a very important ceremony honoring his colleague in the Capitol, so, without 

objection, his full opening statement will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rockefeller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

We are now going to continue our discussion of interrogation in today’s second 

panel. 

Although we very rarely hear from non-government witnesses, the topic of interrogation poses legal and moral questions that require public debate. 

If we truly want to answer the question of what is in the best interest of the country, we must ensure that we hear outside perspectives on the impact of U.S. interrogation policies and practices. 

Our witnesses are well equipped to provide us that outside perspective. Our panelists today have military and interrogation experience, legal familiarity with international treaty obligations, and experience treating patients exposed to the harsh 

interrogation tactics of other countries. These witnesses can help us answer a variety of unclassified questions on interrogation issues. 

Our witnesses today can help us better understand the recent Executive Order 

interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Is the Executive Order 

consistent with historical interpretation of Common Article 3? Does it change the 

‘‘humane treatment’’ standard of Common Article 3 to permit treatment that we 

would find unacceptable if used against an American solider? Will the 193 other 

countries that have signed on to the Geneva Conventions agree with our interpretation of Common Article 3? 

2 

Our witnesses can also help us consider the practical impact of the Executive 

Order. What does the Executive Order say about our commitment to human rights 

and our international treaty obligations? How will it affect our military personnel 

operating abroad? 

Finally, our witnesses can help us consider prospective U.S. policies. The need to 

obtain actionable intelligence from detainees is unlikely to end in the near future. 

How do we go about conducting interrogation if we want to ensure both that we obtain the intelligence we need to protect the nation from attack and that we maintain 

our moral standing in the world? 

Although the Committee has agreed to conduct this second panel in closed session, many of the witnesses for this panel do not have clearances. Therefore, no classified information may be discussed during this second session. 

Because the Committee thinks it is important that the debate on these important 

topics be made public, the Committee has made the decision to post witness statements immediately following the hearing. Once the hearing transcript from this second portion of the hearing is completed and reviewed, the transcript will also be 

made part of the public record. 

I welcome our witnesses today for the second panel: Lieutenant General Charley 

Otstott; Colonel Steven Kleinman; Dr. Allen Keller, the Program Director of the 

Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Elisa Massimino, the Washington 

Director of Human Rights First Professor; and Robert Turner, from the University 

of Virginia Law School’s Center for National Security Law. 

Vice Chairman BOND. It is important, I should note, that we 

have previously agreed that although the Committee has agreed to 

conduct this second panel in closed session, many of these witnesses do not have clearances; therefore, to my Members and staff, 

no classified information may be discussed during this second session. 

But, because the Committee thinks it’s important that the debate 

on these important topics be made public, the Committee has made 

the decision to post witness statements immediately following the 

hearing. Once the hearing transcript from the second portion of the 

hearing is completed and reviewed to assure no classified information, the transcript will also be made part of the public record. 

Today it’s my pleasure on behalf of the Chairman to welcome our 

witnesses for the second panel—Lieutenant General Charlie 

Otstott, Colonel Steve Kleinman, Dr. Allan Keller, the program director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, Elisa 

Massimino, the Washington Director, Human Rights First, and 

Professor Robert Turner from the University of Virginia Law 

School Center for National Security Law. 

With that, I will now call upon General Otstott. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLEY OTSTOTT, 

U.S. ARMY, RET. 

General OTSTOTT. Good afternoon, Senators, and thank you for 

hosting us today. It’s a pleasure to be here to provide my personal 

views as a combat veteran on the topic of handling of detainees. 

I was commissioned in the infantry from West Point in 1960 and 

served 32 years in the Army. I served two combat tours in Vietnam, first as an advisor to South Vietnamese infantry battalions 

in 1964–1965 and then as a member of the 101st Airborne Division 

as a rifle company commander and a battalion operations officer in 

1967 to 1968. 

I was always guided by my understanding during that time of 

the Geneva Conventions and by a clear ethical code that said essentially treat detainees as you would wish them to treat you. I followed this code even when I suspected the enemy might not treat 

3 

us the same way. But I believe that operating from this position 

on the moral high ground gives our soldiers the right to expect decent treatment if they are captured. 

The language of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions 

provides a clear standard of treatment of detainees on the battlefield. The Army has recently published a revised field manual, following Abu Ghurayb, which further codifies the proper handling 

and interrogation of detainees. In my view, soldiers need clear 

guidance in the heat of combat. The new field manual provides an 

easily understood standard, and the Army has taken measures to 

correct the ambiguities that probably contributed to the situation 

at Abu Ghurayb. 

Some might claim the new field manual is too simplistic for sophisticated interrogators, but the principles reflected in the field 

manual are values that no U.S. agency should violate. The FM provides a set of approaches to interrogation that should be sufficient 

to guide even the most sophisticated interrogator. 

General Petraeus recently reinforced the field manual standards 

in his letter to the troops of the Multinational Force–Iraq on 10 

May of this year, which condemned the abuse of detainees. In the 

letter he says the following: ‘‘We are indeed warriors. We train to 

kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat. We pursue the enemy 

relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart 

from our enemies in this fight, however, 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.’’ 

So the military or the uniformed services are back on track, trying to adhere to a simple, clear and understandable standard for 

the treatment of detainees as found in the field manual. Senior 

military leaders are now speaking out to make sure that the standards are understood all the way down to the lowest levels. 

But the President’s Executive Order of 20 July expresses an interpretation of Common Article 3 which appears to provide a different set of standards for the CIA in the handling and interrogation of detainees. In my opinion, there are two problems associated 

with this new Executive Order. 

First, any techniques used by the CIA under this program are essentially those which our soldiers could expect to have used against 

them if they fall into enemy hands. Admiral McConnell, in speaking publicly about the Executive Order and the CIA program, admitted that he ‘‘would not want a U.S. citizen to go through the 

processes’’ that are allowed under this order. 

Second, the Order reintroduces ambiguity into situations where 

CIA and U.S. military personnel are working side by side, as in 

many locales within Iraq today. The existence of different standards does not work well in practice and provides a confusion factor 

which detracts from clear guidance and simple standards. This confusion can lead to the disgraceful behavior which we saw earlier in 

the current conflict. 

I conclude by urging you to do all within your power, Senators, 

to maintain the integrity of Common Article 3 and to provide a single, clear standard of behavior for all U.S. personnel engaged in 

this and future conflicts. 

4 

Thank you. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you very much, General. Now we 

turn to Colonel Kleinman. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL STEVEN KLEINMAN, U.S. AIR FORCE 

RESERVE, EDUCING INFORMATION STUDY SENIOR ADVISOR 

Colonel KLEINMAN. Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee, it’s truly an honor to be here today and share my thoughts 

on this very important issue. 

My background, over 20 years of commissioned service, focused 

primarily on human intelligence operations, much of that involving 

interrogations, including three military campaigns—in Panama, 

first Gulf War and, most recently, in Iraqi Freedom. In addition, 

I was the DOD’s senior intelligence officer for special survival 

training. What that means is I was also an expert on the counterstrategies to resist interrogation, one of the few people, fortunately 

enough, who have actually worked on both sides of the table, so to 

speak. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you say ‘‘fortunate’’ or ‘‘unfortunate?’’ 

Colonel KLEINMAN. I will say fortunate, very fortunate. 

This background will indelibly inform the perspectives that I 

want to share with you today, as I was asked to address three primary areas—historical U.S. practices, the effectiveness of various 

interrogation approaches, and, finally, challenges faced by the 

United States as we move forward. 

As a student at the Defense Intelligence College, I wrote a thesis 

on the U.S. interrogation program during World War II, and I 

began that thesis with a quote from a British officer who worked 

in a counterpart program. He said, ‘‘Interrogation of prisoners is a 

difficult and delicate task that cannot be conducted by anybody 

anywhere, by no matter what method. It is indispensable if results 

of any value are to be obtained, that the examination be conducted 

in a skilled, planned, and methodical manner.’’ 

The U.S. program I studied, known as MIS–Y, clearly took that 

guidance to heart. Operating without established doctrine, these 

very creative and dynamic individuals serving as interrogators, as 

analysts and as monitors, developed an incredibly effective program, the product of which would soon be on par with the vaunted 

communication intercepts of the ENIGMA program. 

The lessons I learned in my studies are these. Number one, interrogation is a complex, dynamic process that is as operationally 

vexing as any clandestine operation. MIS–Y responded to the challenge by recruiting a cadre of individuals with impressive academic 

credentials, such successful life experience, with knowledge of the 

language and culture and an ability to produce results in an ambiguous and chaotic environment. 

Secondly, to maximize the return on their investment, they selected only those prisoners that they knew to possess information 

of critical intelligence value. That process of selection was both judicious and meticulous. The exhaustive research that went into the 

effort before every interrogation was amazing. The standard became three to six hours of preparation for every hour actually 

spent in interrogation. 

5 

Unfortunately, due to the time when we transitioned rapidly 

from World War II into the era of the cold war, much of this information, the corporate knowledge from MIS–Y, was classified and 

remained unavailable to inform the stories that unfolded during 

subsequent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and in the Gulf. So those 

chapters were not informed by the previous and very successful 

chapter. 

Moving on to effectiveness, most of the debate surrounding the 

topic of interrogation has focused on this question. Interrogation is, 

at its best, an art and a science, probably more the former than the 

latter, and certainly effectiveness falls into that. While the U.S. 

government invested an extraordinary amount of time and money 

into studying what we used to call the communist interrogation 

model during the fifties, sixties and seventies, very little time was 

spent studying interrogation—meaning the collection of intelligence 

information from sources who might possess that intelligence. 

The intent was honorable. If we could deconstruct that model, 

perhaps we could identify counter-strategies to resist it. Unfortunately, we spent very little time studying the interrogation for intelligence gathering purposes, and I would state for you today that 

most of the approaches, most of the strategies, in fact the paradigm 

behind the current Army field manual is not based on scientific inquiry. It is, at best—and I’ve done my research in the archives— 

it is, at best, based on a collection of lessons learned assembled 

after World War II. The trail backward from the present disappears in 1950 but has nonetheless been codified in each successive iteration. So what we know about ‘‘pride and ego-up’’ and 

‘‘emotional love of country,’’ and ‘‘we know all’’, is essentially speculation. 

In the limited time I have I wanted to turn very briefly to the 

concept of ‘‘effectiveness’’ as it might apply to the use of coercion. 

The debate around the employment of coercive methods seems to 

center exclusively on the legal and moral elements rather than the 

idea of what might be operationally effective. There seems to be a 

presupposition that coercion does work. It’s just a question of 

should we, as a nation, use it. 

I submit that I have not seen—and I believe I can say that I’ve 

studied this issue at length—any definitive studies that would 

prove that coercive methods are at all useful in consistently producing valid intelligence information. Please recall that the whole 

purpose of interrogation is to have access to somebody’s accurate, 

timely and comprehensive memory. A literature review on the psychology of eye- witness testimony will immediately raise important 

questions about the impact of stress on memory. 

I will just quickly press on to the conclusions. We need to understand both the art and science, and that will require a meaningful 

plan to conduct more research. 

We need to develop, I believe, like MIS–Y, an entity of common 

concern for the intelligence community that would address this research and ultimately put that research into effect, setting standards to truly professionalize this discipline, with all that this implies. In doing so, I think we can still meet the serious operational 

challenges we face, both those we encounter today and those that 

might emerge in a different paradigm in the future, and do so in 

6 

1 A summary of my thesis has been made available to the committee’s counsel. 2 A total of 3,451of prisoners-of-war passed through Fort Hunt from August 1942 to July 1945. 

a way that I think our country may think is impossible—that is, 

to conduct our affairs in a way that is truly good, thereby sending 

the message to the world that we are country that wishes to be 

truly great. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Col. Kleinman follows:] 

PREPEARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL STEVEN KLEINMAN

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to 

thank-you for the wonderful opportunity to testify at this hearing on interrogation 

policy. 

In the course of my more than twenty years of military service, I have had the 

great fortune to have been involved in the design, management, and conduct of the 

full spectrum of human intelligence operations. This experience has included service 

as an interrogator during three major military campaigns: Operation JUST CAUSE, 

Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM, and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. I also 

was entrusted with directing the Air Force Combat Interrogation Course during 

which we provided a unique training program for interrogators from all the services 

as well as several foreign countries. Reflecting upon these experiences today, I can 

assure you that never could I have imagined one day having the honor of appearing 

before this august body with what is almost certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to share my observations, insights, and recommendations. 

I have been asked to focus my remarks on three primary areas: 1) historical U.S. 

interrogation practices, 2) the effectiveness of various interrogation approaches, and 

3) the challenges faced by the United States in developing an effective interrogation 

program. I’ll begin, then, by addressing each of these issues before offering several 

concluding thoughts. 

Historical U.S. Interrogation Practices 

As a student in the graduate program in strategic intelligence at the National Defense Intelligence College, I began my thesis on the U.S. strategic interrogation program during World War II with a quote from a British officer who had served in 

the United Kingdom’s Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Center, an extraordinary program that would became the model for our own. I believe Flying Officer 

S.D. Felkin eloquently captured the intrinsic nature of interrogation when he observed: 

‘‘Interrogation of prisoners is a difficult and delicate task that cannot be 

conducted by anybody, anywhere and by no matter what method. It is indispensable, if results of any value are to be produced, that the examination 

be conducted in a skilled, planned and methodical manner.’’ 

The U.S. program that I studied in depth, conducted under the auspices of the 

Military Intelligence Service and referred to simply as MIS–Y, clearly took this 

guidance to heart. Operating without previously established doctrine, the dynamic 

and creative individuals who served as interrogators, analysts, and monitors developed an incredibly effective program, the product of which would soon be valued on 

par with the decisive intelligence generated by the vaunted Enigma communications 

intercept program. 

The lessons I uncovered in my research1 would, I believe, be of significant value 

in informing the American approach to interrogation in this contemporary era. 

• Interrogation is a complex, dynamic process that is as operationally vexing as 

any clandestine intelligence operation. MIS–Y responded to the challenge by recruiting a cadre of individuals with impressive academic credentials, successful 

life experience, knowledge of the language and culture, and adept at producing 

results in an environment marked by chaos and ambiguity. 

• To maximize the return on investment, only those prisoners with access to, and 

knowledge of, information of critical intelligence value were ultimately selected 

for long-term examination at the Fort Hunt Facility. The multi-tiered selection 

process that developed can be described as both meticulous and judicious.2

• Exhaustive research and preparation prior to the conduct of every interrogation 

was standard. As the process evolved, three to six hours were invested in preparation for every hour spent in the actual interrogation. Interrogator—and interVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
7 

rogation teams—became bona fide subject matter experts in the array of specialized and technical areas of intelligence interest. 

Unfortunately, due to the prevailing national security interests that unfolded as 

the nation rapidly transitioned from World War II into the era of the Cold War, 

much of the corporate knowledge developed by the MIS–Y effort remained classified 

and largely unavailable until this treasure was once again declassified in the early 

1990s. As a result, the stories of the American interrogation programs that emerged 

during subsequent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf did so without the benefit of this extraordinary preceding chapter. 

Effectiveness of Various Interrogation Approaches 

Much of the debate surrounding the topic of interrogation in recent times has focused on this very question. I think it would be safe to say that in viewing interrogation as both an art and a science, the discussion of effectiveness falls primarily 

within the province of the former. While the U.S. Government invested in the study 

of interrogation during the 1950s through the 1970s, those programs almost exclusively examined the intricacies of what was once labeled the Communist Interrogation Model. The initial intent, I would submit was honorable: if we could deconstruct 

the nature of this coercive model, perhaps we could identify effective counter-strategies and therefore better prepare Americans going in harm’s way who might find 

themselves detained by nations that did not conduct their affairs in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of prisoners. 

Unfortunately, there was little interest in studying the nature of interrogation as 

a unique method of collecting critical intelligence information from foreign nationals 

detained by the United States. As a result, the interrogation strategies set forth in 

the current Army Field Manual are not based on scientific inquiry. Immersing myself in the archives, my best guess is that they are derived from lessons learned 

from tactical interrogations conducted during World War II. Those lessons—captured in such strategies as Pride & Ego Up, Rapid Fire, and We Know All—have 

since been codified into the various iterations of the Field Manual. 

Arguments for or against the effectiveness of this paradigm are based almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence. The fact that Specialist Jones orchestrated the 

Emotional Love of Family approach and obtained information of intelligence is too 

often viewed as prima fascia evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy. Factors 

such as the interrogator’s presence or personality, the physical setting, and the 

events experienced by the prisoner prior to interrogation lay beyond our ability to 

thus far measure. 

While I have observed effective interrogations—and would like to think I’ve been 

effective in the course of the interrogations I’ve conducted—the only conclusion I can 

state that would meet the standards of scientific rigor is this: we don’t know if the 

methods we are employing are effective, nor do we know for certain what other 

strategies or methods might be more effective than what we are teaching today. 

That said, the sum total of my experience suggests that the most effective means 

of conducting interrogations—and by effective, I mean achieving consistent success 

in obtaining accurate, comprehensive, and timely information—is through what has 

been frequently described as a ‘‘relationship-based’’ model. Let me emphasize that 

this is far more than just establishing rapport; it involves the pursuit of operational 

accord. Employing non-threatening principles of persuasion and enlightened cultural 

finesse, the interrogator seeks to establish a productive, non-adversarial relationship wherein the source perceives his interests to be best served by engaging cooperatively with the interrogator. To borrow from negotiation theory, this involves fostering strategies rather than forcing strategies. 

Since issues relating to coercion and torture continue to occupy centerstage in the 

public debate over this country’s interrogation policy, I think it would show lack of 

courage on my part to sidestep this issue completely. I continue to be amazed that 

in the debate involving the so-called ‘‘ticking bomb’’ scenario, there appears to be 

a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel 

a source to provide actionable intelligence with the parties focusing only on the legal 

and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there 

is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence 

to suggest the contrary. 

I find that even the effort to define torture to be an elusive game at best. The 

problem lies in the fact that interrogations are conducted in the theater of reality, 

not a virtual world of words. From this operator’s perspective, I find myself in full 

agreement with the observations of author Mark Moyar as set forth in his book, 

Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, a well-researched account of the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program. 

8 

Some people define torture as the infliction of severe physical pain on a defenseless person. I define torture as the infliction of any pain on a defenseless individual because deciding which activities inflict severe pain is an excessively complicated and imprecise business. 

Challenges Faced by the United States in Developing an Effective Interrogation Program 

It is this professional’s opinion that the challenges before us—what I have described in my writings as barriers to success—are threefold: 

The first is the linguistic/cultural barrier to success. The interrogator’s ability to 

engage with a source with near-native fluency and acute cultural awareness is of 

vital importance. Distilled to its most fundamental form, interrogation is about information and relationships, with language and cultural intelligence serving as the 

primary instruments. 

The second is the specialized knowledge barrier to success. Most experts agree 

that the both counterterrorism and counterinsurgency are intelligence-driven activities. In this regard, interrogation moves from the margins to play a central role in 

intelligence collection. As an example, General Hayden recently noted that more 

than 70 percent of the human intelligence used in the National Intelligence Estimate pertaining to threats to homeland security was based on information obtained 

from detainees. 

The nature of the information required in these realms, however, is profoundly 

different from that sought in a conventional Battlespace. Rather than order of battle 

and lines of communications, interrogators need a detailed understanding of arcane 

finance structures, amorphous cell networks, and communications systems brought 

forward from antiquity. As with the cultural barrier to success, the specialized 

knowledge barrier to success is predicated on Sun Tzu’s timeless exhortation to 

know the enemy. 

Finally, there is what I’ve labeled the interpersonal barrier to success. The advent 

of the behavioral science consulting team concept resulted from a recognition that 

interrogation is an intense interpersonal dynamic bounded by complex informational 

and relational factors. Thus far, however, behavioral science consulting teams have 

been primarily comprised of clinical psychologists. To effectively overcome the myriad interpersonal challenges, the interrogator’s methods should be informed by the 

full array of sound behavioral science, including at a minimum, such disciplines as 

social psychology and cultural anthropology. 

Conclusions 

It is likely evident from my foregoing remarks that I believe we have challenges 

before us in evolving the American way of interrogation. These challenges, however, 

are not unlike those facing the United States in 1942. In recommending a way forward, then, I rely in part upon the lessons I learned in studying the MIS–Y experience. Leaders at that time identified four key areas of emphasis to ensure mission 

success. 

First, they needed to design an in-depth training program that transcended what 

was being taught in the basic interrogation courses. Today, this would require a 

comprehensive research effort and the systematic study of our interrogators who 

have demonstrated an ability to achieve consistent results. 

Second, they would require an innovative and adaptable approach to interrogation. The prisoners they faced were often well-educated, conversant in several languages, and moved easily across cultures. This also describes many of the highvalue detainees we have encountered. A more sophisticated strategic model mandates a more sophisticated approach to research. 

Third, they needed to create a function-driven organization. I believe the Intelligence Community would be well-served by the creation of an organization of common concern vested with the responsibility for professionalizing the discipline of interrogation, managing a robust approach to studying the ‘‘science’’ of interrogation, 

and designing doctrine for incorporating the products of that research into field operations. 

And forth, they needed to establish a facility built to precise standards driven by 

operational requirements. To appreciate the importance of this step, one only need 

to reflect back upon the early difficulties experienced at the Guantanamo Bay facility. 

My operational experience has convinced me that these four steps can be taken 

in a manner that meets the spirit and even the most stringent interpretation of national and international law relative to the treatment of prisoners. Perhaps of more 

importance, I am equally convinced this course will enable us to meet current and 

9 

emerging threats in a fashion consistent with the best moral traditions of this nation. 

In this way, I am confident that we would be able to what some of our countrymen have come to believe is impossible: to conduct our operations in a manner that 

demonstrates to all that we are truly good, so that we might, as a nation, embrace 

our desire to be truly great. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you very much, Colonel Kleinman. 

Now we’ll turn to Dr. Keller. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN S. KELLER, M.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 

OF MEDICINE; DIRECTOR, BELLEVUE/NYU PROGRAM FOR 

SURVIVORS OF TORTURE; MEMBER, ADVISORY COUNCIL, 

PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 

Dr. KELLER. Thank you. 

Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this Committee 

today. I’m testifying on behalf of the Bellevue/NYU Program for 

Survivors of Torture, as well as Physicians for Human Rights. 

I want to share with you my perspective as a physician concerning torture and interrogation practices. Mine is not a theoretical one. It’s based on more than fifteen years of experience in 

caring for more than 2000 men, women and children from all over 

the world who have experienced torture and mistreatment, and 

studying the health consequences. 

The focus of my comments is on the profound and dangerous 

health effects of torture and interrogation techniques, often referred to in the seemingly innocuous way of ‘‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’’ I know you are all familiar with the list of these 

techniques. In my written testimony I have discussed several of 

them. I would be happy to answer questions. It is crucial that you 

understand from a medical, scientific and health perspective that 

there is nothing, nothing benign about these methods. 

If you take one thing away from what I say today, let it be that 

you know that these methods are dehumanizing, they are traumatizing, they are dangerous, and they have horrific health consequences. I’ve treated traumatized and damaged individuals who 

were subjected to every one of these techniques. Many forms of torture and abuse, including the enhanced interrogation techniques, 

may leave no physical scars but can nonetheless cause severe physical and psychological suffering. If a gun is held to someone’s head 

and the trigger pulled in a mock execution, there may be no physical marks, but the nightmares, the terror, the fears can last a lifetime. Stress positions can kill you. I have patients who were nearly 

killed or still suffer, years after, from being forced to stand for extended periods and likewise suffer the psychological impact of what 

they endured. 

It’s also important to note that any one form of torture or mistreatment rarely occurs in isolation but in combination with several abusive methods, and the context is also critical. There’s a profound difference between the student pulling an all-nighter, the 

young physician who is on call every third night versus the detainee who is kept up for long periods who has no sense of when 

that mistreatment will end and rightfully fears for their life. 

Such methods are potentially harmful even to individuals who 

were healthy before. When used with individuals who have underVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
10 

lying psychological or medical problems such as heart disease or 

high blood pressure, they can be life-threatening by causing heart 

attacks or strokes. 

Now while the health consequences are clear, it’s dubious at best 

that such methods elicit accurate information. I know from the victims I have cared for that they’ve told me that they would say 

whatever they thought needed to be said, whether it was true or 

not, to make these methods and this brutality stop. But there must 

be no mistake about the brutality of these enhanced interrogation 

techniques and no mistake about their health consequences. 

Let me just focus on two examples—first of all, stress positions 

and standing. There has been much discussion from individuals, 

saying, well, I stand for 18 hours a day while working. Let me tell 

you there is a profound difference between that and an individual 

forced to stand in one position for that period. I have a Tibetan 

monk who I’ve cared for, an individual who was arrested and mistreated for promoting freedom in Tibet, and as a result of his actions/activities, he was forced to stand and was beaten. He developed deep vein thromboses, clots in the lower extremities that migrated up to his lungs. When I saw him, he could barely breathe. 

He almost died. If not for life- saving surgery, in fact, he would 

have died. 

Sensory deprivation, such as being held in a dark cell or hooded 

results in disorientation, profound panic, and an adrenergic surge, 

a release of catecholamines that make you have heart palpitations 

and horrible fear. 

I have individuals who I’ve cared for years afterwards who remain claustrophobic and terrified of the dark, and these aren’t individuals who were weak before they suffered this abuse. They were 

often high-functioning individuals who years later tragically are 

shells of who they were. 

I was asked to say a few words about the medical ethics of physician and health professional participation in interrogation. Let me 

just say this. First, it is a gross breach of professional ethics for 

health professionals to participate in torture in any way or countenance or condone torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

Regarding interrogations, most major medical organizations have 

stated that it is a violation for health professionals to participate 

in any way. I’m also concerned as a health professional that if we 

as a nation in any way condone these methods, we are pouring kerosene on what is already a worldwide public health epidemic of torture and mistreatment. 

So, in conclusion, I would say, as a physician and scientist who 

has spent much of his career evaluating and caring for torture victims, I want to clearly state that these methods are cruel, inhuman 

and have horrific health consequences. I urge you to ensure that 

there is transparency, because that’s the most effective means for 

stopping and preventing torture and to ensure that these methods 

are not allowed to be used on our watch. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Keller follows:] 

11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN S. KELLER

Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this committee today. I am testifying on behalf of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights. As a physician, I want to share with you my perspective 

on torture and abusive interrogation practices. My perspective is not a theoretical 

one. It is based on more than 15 years of experience in evaluating and caring for 

victims of torture and mistreatment from around the world, and studying the health 

consequences of such trauma. I will also address the ethical restrictions for health 

professionals regarding interrogations as well as the impact of U.S. policies on torture and mistreatment worldwide. 

The focus of my comments are on the profound and dangerous health consequences of torture and interrogation techniques, often referred to as seemingly benign ‘‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’’ While the full spectrum of such techniques used by U.S. authorities including the Central Intelligence Agency has not 

been disclosed, there have been reports that the ‘‘enhanced’’ interrogation program 

includes methods such as stress positions, shaking and beating, temperature manipulation, threats of harm to person or loved ones, prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory overload, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation, exploitation of fears 

and phobias, cultural or religious humiliation, and water-boarding. From a medical, 

scientific and health perspective, there is nothing benign about them. Such techniques are gruesome, dehumanizing and dangerous. Noted one torture victim I 

cared for: ‘‘As someone who has experienced torture, I know these things are torture.’’ And in fact based on the medical evidence he is correct. Clinical experience 

and data from the medical literature are clear and unequivocal. These techniques 

can cause significant and long lasting psychological and often physical pain and 

harm. Furthermore, these methods have been implicated in the deaths of several 

detainees in U.S. Custody since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. 

I urge the Committee to conduct a full investigation into the use of these techniques; ensure transparency with regards to what interrogation techniques are 

used, given that transparency is crucial in preventing torture and abusive interrogation techniques; and ensure that torture and abusive interrogation techniques such 

as those cited above are prohibited. 

I am an Associate Professor of Medicine at New York University School of Medicine. I am Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture in New 

York City and the NYU School of Medicine Center for Health and Human Rights. 

Since our Program began in 1995, we have cared for over 2,000 men, women and 

children from more than 80 countries. Our Program is a member of the National 

Consortium of Treatment Programs (NCTTP) whose approximately 30 member organizations care for torture victims in more than 20 states across the United States. 

Additionally we are members of the International Rehabilitation Council of Torture 

Victims (IRCT) which includes more than 130 torture rehabilitation centers and programs worldwide. Individuals cared for in the Bellevue/NYU program have been 

persecuted for daring to question ruling powers; for expressing religious beliefs; or 

simply because of their race or ethnicity. 

Additionally, I am co-chair of the Bellevue Hospital Bioethics Committee and 

oversee bioethics education at NYU School of Medicine. I have also served as a 

member of the American College of Physicians Ethics and Human Rights Committee. 

I am a member of the Advisory Council of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). 

I have participated in PHR’s asylum network examining victims of torture and mistreatment applying for political asylum here in the United States. I have also participated in several PHR investigations and studies documenting torture and mistreatment, and training health professionals in conducting such documentation. I 

served as an advisor and reviewer for the recent report from PHR and Human 

Rights First ‘‘Leave No Marks.’’ This report documents the harmful health impact 

of enhanced interrogation techniques and the risk of criminality. In my testimony 

today, I draw on my own clinical and research experience, including evaluation of 

several former U.S. detainees, as well as information presented in the PHR report 

and data from the medical literature. 

In my work with torture victims, I have seen the scars from shackles, the marks 

from cigarette bums inflicted during interrogation and the wounds and broken bones 

from severe beatings. I have listened to stories of shame and humiliation from individuals raped or sexually humiliated, of haunting nightmares, and memories that 

will not go away. One patient of mine, for example, who was repeatedly submerged 

in a vat of water while being interrogated, years later still felt as if he was gasping 

for air whenever he showered or went out in the rain. 

12 

Torture can have devastating health consequences on the victim’s physical, mental and social well being. Severe beatings or being restrained in painful positions 

can result in bruises, broken bones, severe and chronic pain including joint and 

muscle pain. Neurological symptoms including headaches, dizziness, hearing loss 

and loss of sensation are also common. Burns from cigarettes, beatings with whips 

or sticks can result in scars. 

Many forms of torture and abuse, including the enhanced interrogation techniques, may leave no physical scars but can nonetheless cause severe physical and 

psychological suffering. For example, if someone is forced to witness the rape or torture of a family member, or subjected to the sexual humiliation of forced nakedness, 

or a gun is held to their head and the trigger pulled in a mock execution, there may 

be no physical scars, but the nightmares, the terrors can persist for years after the 

trauma. One patient of mine while being interrogated had a gun pointed at his head 

which was abruptly pulled away and shot into the air. He told me ‘‘Until now I still 

hear the sound of the gun in my brain. This psychological torture is encrusted in 

my brain.’’ 

According to one recent study published in the medical literature, the significance 

of harm caused by non-physical psychological abuse is virtually identical to the significance of the harm caused by physical abuse. In a study conducted by our own 

program, we found that psychological symptoms were significantly higher among 

those who experienced death threats. 

Psychological distress is alarmingly common among survivors of torture and trauma. This includes posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) manifested by recurrent terrifying memories and nightmares and profound social impairment; as well as depression manifested by extreme feelings of sadness and hopelessness, including suicidal thoughts. Severe and chronic sleep difficulties are also signs of both depression 

and PTSD and common sequellae of torture and abuse. Extreme stress results in 

a physiologic response that involves release of stress hormones, such as cortisol, 

that have immediate effects on cardiac function, and blood pressure and may even 

have long lasting effects on insulin resistance and immune function. 

The physical, psychological and social dimensions of health are interdependent. 

For example, an individual who was severely beaten may experience musculoskeletal pain. The recurring pain may trigger significant psychological symptoms, 

such as intrusive thoughts of the trauma. Because of these symptoms, the individual 

may be socially isolated, withdrawn and distrustful of society. Torture also impacts 

on the health of the community through fear and intimidation, which can become 

pervasive. 

It is important to note that any one form of torture or mistreatment rarely occurs 

in isolation, but in combination with several abusive methods. The harm caused by 

the combination is greater than the additive effect of individual techniques. Prolonged isolation, for example, combined with sleep deprivation, exposure to loud 

noises, and exposure to cold, compound their devastating psychological impact. Furthermore the potential of these techniques to cause harm is intimately related to 

the context and setting in which they are used. Settings are designed to maximize 

the detainee’s sense of loss of autonomy and control and complete vulnerability to 

the interrogator. Fear of harm or even death is real, not imagined. Cultural and religious humiliations, and language barriers heighten stress. 

Such methods are potentially harmful to even individuals who were previously 

healthy. When used with individuals who have underlying psychological or medical 

problems, such as heart disease which may or may not be known, they can be potentially lethal for example by causing heart attacks or strokes. 

To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques, 

are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods are intended to break the prisoners 

down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, and in so doing result in lasting harmful health consequences. 

While the health consequences of these methods are clear, it is dubious at best, 

that such brutal methods elicit accurate information. I know from the torture victims I have cared for that individuals so brutalized will often say whatever they 

think their interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Noted one torture 

victim I cared for: ‘‘I would say anything to stop the torture. Even if what I was 

saying was not true. I would say what ever they wanted to hear to make them stop.’’ 

There must be no mistake about the brutality of the stress and duress ‘‘enhanced 

interrogation methods’’ and that the harmful medical consequences, both physical 

and psychological, of such coercive methods can be long lasting and severe. Each 

tactic, by itself or in combination has the potential to cause significant harm. These 

methods should be called for what they are: torture. Let me give some examples: 

13 

Sleep Deprivation 

Prolonged periods of sleep deprivation can result in confusion and psychosis-delusions and paranoia—clearly not predictors for eliciting accurate information. Physical symptoms include headaches and dizziness and chronic disruptions of normal 

sleep patterns. One patient of mine who in his country of origin was kept in a prison 

cell with bright lights and loud noises described the following. ‘‘The absence of sleep 

made me feel so sick. I felt dizzy. I had headaches. It affected my mind. I had trouble in my mind I felt like I was going crazy.’’ Sleep deprivation also weakens the 

immune system and deprives vital organs of needed time to repair damage inflicted 

to the body. 

Stress Positions 

Restraining persons for extended periods, keeping individuals in painful positions 

can lead to significant and potentially long-term musculoskeletal pain as well as 

torn ligaments and other injuries and disabilities. Forcing individuals to stand for 

prolonged periods results in pooling of the blood and painful swelling of the lower 

extremities. It may result in blood clots in the legs (deep vein thromboses), which 

can subsequently travel to the lungs as pulmonary embolism—a potentially life 

threatening condition. Individuals forced to stand for extended periods are also more 

likely to faint and collapse, resulting in head trauma. 

One patient of mine, a woman who was a professor at a university in her African 

country was arrested there for criticizing the ruling party. She was beaten, sexually 

assaulted and forced to stand naked. She described how her captors mocked and 

laughed at her while she stood there. They refused her access to a toilet and she 

subsequently urinated on herself. Unable to stand any longer she fell to the ground, 

but was forced to stand up again. As a result of her abuse she suffered chronic deep 

vein thromboses in both of her legs, which caused painful swelling, and required 

anticoagulation medication for several years following her abuse. Another patient of 

mine—a Tibetan monk, arrested after working to promote freedom in Tibet— suffered deep vein thromboses and subsequently pulmonary embolism as a result of 

prolonged standings and beatings. At the time I initially evaluated him he could 

barely breathe from the pulmonary embolism and nearly died. Several deaths of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan are believed to have resulted directly 

from the use of stress positions, according to an analysis of coroners’ reports. 

Sensory Deprivation 

Sensory deprivation, such as being held for prolonged periods in a dark cell or 

hooding can result in disorientation, severe anxiety and long term psychological 

damage, particularly when combined with mock execution or other psychological 

methods. Years after being held in isolation in small dark cells, patients of mine 

describe experiencing profound nervousness particularly in the dark or in enclosed 

spaces. This is not because they were weak persons. To the contrary, they were commonly individuals who prior to their abuse were high functioning, strong and selfconfident. 

Violent Shaking 

Shaking can result in intracranial hemorrhages (bleeding of the brain), cerebral 

edema (swelling of the brain), resulting in increased intracranial pressure and permanent neurological deficits including cognitive impairments and/or death. 

Sensory Overload 

Sensory bombardment with light and noise can inflict extreme mental and physical harm whether it is used as a discrete interrogation tool or to disrupt sleep. 

These methods are intended to cause physiologic distress and disorientation. The 

body interprets such over-stimulation as danger signals, and an adrenergic response 

ensues with the release of stress hormones, which result in increased heart rate, 

increased blood pressure. This can potentially increase the risk of life threatening 

conditions such as myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). 

Exposure to loud noises can result in chronic decreased hearing loss or even deafness or chronic tinnitus (ringing in the ears). Many of the patients I have cared for 

continue to suffer from poor hearing, tinnitus, and the sense that ‘‘the noise is still 

in their head.’’ 

Exposure to Extreme Cold or Heat 

Subjecting a prisoner to extremes of temperature clearly can cause enormous 

physical discomfort and suffering. The body is highly regulated to maintain core 

body temperature within a narrow range which is essential for human survival. 

Thus prolonged exposure to either extremes of cold or heat is potentially life threatening resulting in hypothermia or hyperthermia. 

14 

Exposure to cold for example, by being placed in a room where it is very cold or 

forced to stand outside naked in the cold, and having cold water thrown on you, can 

have harmful consequences even if the environmental temperature is well above 

freezing. Even moderate cold exposure can lead to significant shifts from peripheral 

circulation—the body’s way of maintaining core body temperature. This in turn can 

result in life threatening cardiac arrythmias, slowing of gastrointestinal functioning 

and possible decreased resistance to infection, and neurologic and cognitive impairments. Such methods conjure memories of the infamous hypothermia experiments 

conducted by the Nazis where concentration camp prisoners were immersed in vats 

of cold water from which many died. 

Exposure to heat can result in dehydration, delirium, unconsciousness, and heat 

stroke—a life threatening condition. One patient of mine who was held in an overcrowded prison cell which was extremely hot and had bright lights described to me 

how dehydrated, weak and confused he became. He described how his skin became 

dry, cracked and even changed color ‘‘like a snake.’’ Many of his fellow cellmates 

fared even worse. ‘‘People died in my arms,’’ he told me. 

Sexual Humiliation 

Forced nakedness and sexual humiliations, such as being forced to perform sexually humiliating or embarrassing acts; being naked in front of members of the opposite sex; sexual touching or insults or threatening with rape; result in feelings of 

shame, guilt and worthlessness. Witnessing others subjected to this can be extremely traumatizing as well. While many individuals I have evaluated who were 

subjected to sexual humiliations were raped and sodomized, even those who were 

not, commonly feared this would happen to them. 

Individuals whom I have evaluated, including those formerly detained in U.S. custody, subjected to sexual humiliations commonly described how utterly helpless, terrified and degraded they felt by such acts which destroyed their sense of dignity and 

self-confidence. Many of these victims shared their strong belief that such sexual 

humiliation was far worse than any beatings they may have experienced, and years 

later are haunted by shameful memories, nightmares, and loss of libido (decreased 

sexual functioning). While sexual humiliations are potentially traumatizing in all 

cultures, in certain cultures their impact may be even more traumatizing. 

Water-boarding 

Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board 

and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly 

can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags 

and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic 

and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk 

of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs 

from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and 

PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp 

for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse. 

Beatings 

Beatings can clearly result in serious bruises, soft tissue injuries, acute and 

chronic pain and broken bones and death. Slapping with an open hand can result 

in serious injury, for example when an individual is hit in a particularly vulnerable 

area such as the face. Neck injuries from an ‘‘attention slap’’ to the face where the 

head suddenly jolts back is predictable. I have cared for many individuals with 

chronic visual problems as a result of being struck on the face. Individuals subjected 

to beatings are also at risk of significant psychological symptoms including depression and PTSD. 

The combination of beating and stress positions has been implicated in at least 

two deaths of U.S. detainees. The use of beating in U.S. interrogation of detainees 

has often been called more benign names such as the ‘‘attention’’ slap or ‘‘attention 

grab,’’ Such forms of beatings can potentially cause significant injuries and harm. 

Threats of Harm to Person, Family, or Friends 

It is well known through clinical experience and documented in the medical literature that threats to an individual’s life or physical well-being or to the well-being 

of his family or friends can have profoundly harmful and long-lasting psychological 

impact. Such threats result in extreme fear and helplessness which are strongly associated with PTSD and major depression among trauma survivors. 

Many of my patients I have evaluated have described how such threats and the 

anticipation of such harm were psychologically devastating. Individual’s have told 

me that even worse than their own torture was the feelings of guilt and helplessVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
15 

ness from witnessing friends and loved ones tortured or that they might be subjected to such cruelty. 

Exploitation of Fears and Phobias 

Exploitation of fears and phobias, such as exposure to animals intended to terrify 

individuals can be psychologically traumatizing. For example, one Iraqi former Abu 

Ghraib detainee whom I evaluated, described being threatened with dogs. ‘‘I would 

hear the dog barking very close. Sometimes they would take (my) hood off so I could 

see the dog approaching.’’ 

Medical Ethics and Interrogations 

It is a gross breach of professional ethics for health professionals in any way to 

countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners. This has been clearly stated by major health professional organizations including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, and the World Medical Association. Furthermore a health professional who becomes aware of abusive or coercive practices has a duty to report 

such practices to appropriate authorities. The American Psychological Association 

has specifically banned its members from participation in the tactics that allegedly 

make up the CIA’s ‘‘enhanced’’ interrogation program. 

Regarding interrogations, all of these organizations, with the exception of the 

American Psychological Association, have stated it is a violation for health professional to participate in interrogations in any way, including medical monitoring of 

the subject. The basis for this is that a dual role as health professional-interrogator 

undermines the health professional’s role as healer, and thereby erodes trust in the 

health professionals and their profession. Furthermore, exploiting, sharing or using 

medical information from any source for interrogation purposes is unethical. 

Throughout the 20th century, human rights groups have seen a clear pattern 

amongst governments that torture of co-opting the expertise, credibility and perceived neutrality of the medical profession to legitimize the use of many of the tactics in the CIA’s ‘‘enhanced’’ interrogation program. Sadly, the US, a nation that has 

consistently spoken out against torture and the use of medical professionals in these 

practices is now seeking to cloak abusive and illegal interrogation techniques in the 

white coat of the medical profession. The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral 

Michael McConnell, claimed in July that the ‘‘enhanced’’ program is safe because 

of medical supervision. Health professionals that participate in the role Admiral 

McConnell describes violate the War Crimes Act, the Hippocratic Oath and the 

terms of their health professional license. By monitoring interrogations, health professionals cease to be healers and instead become calibrators of harm. 

Health Impact of U.S. Interrogation Policies Worldwide 

I am very concerned as a health professional that when we as a country condone 

such methods, we are putting our soldiers and others U.S. citizens living around the 

world at risk. Furthermore, practicing or condoning torture by the United States in 

any way runs the risk of increasing what is already a world wide public health epidemic of torture—documented to occur in more than 100 countries. Torture is frequently invoked in the name of national security, whether the victim is a Tibetan 

monk calling for independence or an African student advocate protesting for democracy. While torture is not effective in eliciting accurate information, it is effective 

in undermining community, trust and safety. Any condoning of torture or mistreatment by our country, puts innocent civilians around the world promoting democracy 

and freedom under despot regimes in harms way. 

Added a torture victim I cared for: ‘‘In order for the United States to be strong 

and speak truly to oppressive leaders around the world, the United States must not 

torture or mistreat its prisoners—even terrorists. The United States must lead by 

example. When the United States uses these methods to get the information they 

want, the other governments who don’t care about the population use torture to oppress their populations. They say ‘Even the United States uses torture. Why not us 

to protect our power?’ It is essential that we have clear standards for the treatment 

of all detainees in U.S. custody. 

Conclusion 

As a physician and scientist who has spent much of his professional career evaluating and caring for victims of torture and abuse, I want to clearly state that torture 

and inhuman interrogation techniques are cruel, ineffective and can have devastating health consequences. As a health professional, these abuses and the harm 

they cause deeply offend medical ethics and values. As an American, they offend the 

traditions and principles we have long shared and cherished as a nation, including 

16 

a ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that 

has stood inviolate since George Washington was Commander-in-Chief. I urge you 

to ensure that no one is authorized to violate these defining principles in the name 

of the United States. 

Recommendations 

1. The Intelligence Committee should conduct a full investigation regarding interrogation practices. 

The Intelligence Committee should conduct a full investigation into what interrogation methods and related practices have been and are being used by the intelligence community, particularly with regards to the Central Intelligence Agency. 

2. The Intelligence Committee should ensure transparency regarding interrogation methods used. 

The idea that interrogation techniques must be secret is an invitation to torture. 

Arguably the most effective means of preventing torture is to ensure transparency. 

3. The Intelligence Committee should ensure that torture and abusive interrogation techniques are prohibited. 

The restrictions contained in the Army Field Manual should apply to the treatment of all detainees during interrogations conducted by all U.S. personnel (including the CIA and any contractors) anywhere in the world. Additionally, torture and 

abusive interrogation techniques such as stress positions, shaking and beating, temperature manipulation, threats of harm to person or loved ones, prolonged isolation, 

sleep deprivation, sensory overload, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation, exploitation of fears and phobias, cultural or religious humiliation and water-boarding 

should be explicitly forbidden through amendments to the War Crimes Act. 

4. The Intelligence Committee should ensure that health professionals do 

not violate their professional ethics 

Health professionals must uphold the ethical standards of their professions and 

must not be put in positions where they are expected or asked to violate them. Press 

reports and government documents have shown that health professionals, especially 

psychologists and other mental health specialists, have allegedly played a central 

role in the design, supervision, and implementation of these abusive and illegal tactics. Congress must ensure that role is uniformly prohibited without exceptions. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you, Dr. Keller. 

Ms. Massimino. 

STATEMENT OF ELISA MASSIMINO, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, 

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 

Ms. MASSIMINO. Thank you, Senator. 

I am honored to be here today and I appreciate the opportunity 

to share with you the views of Human Rights First on this important issue. I’m not an expert on interrogations or intelligence. I’ve 

spent most of the last two decades working to leverage the positive 

example of the United States to pressure other governments to respect human rights. But I start from the premise that intelligence 

gathering is a vital tool in disrupting terrorist networks. Effective 

interrogations are an important part of this effort when they are 

conducted consistent with the laws and values of the United States. 

As General Otstott mentioned, the Director of National Intelligence recently said that he would not be comfortable having the 

CIA techniques used against Americans, but if there’s one rule of 

U.S. interrogation policy after the Hamdan decision, it’s this: if the 

U.S. does not want Americans to be subjected to these techniques, 

it must not employ them itself. If the CIA is authorized to use a 

particular interrogation method under the Executive Order, it 

means the U.S. considers that method compliant with Common Article 3 and that our enemies can lawfully use those methods 

17 

against captured Americans in any situation governed by Common 

Article 3. 

This is hardly a theoretical concern. During the cold war, when 

my father served, captured CIA officers were subjected by Chinese 

interrogators to precisely the same kinds of abusive interrogation 

techniques that are now reportedly being used by the CIA—sleep 

deprivation, long time standing and other techniques that leave no 

physical external marks. Would it have made a difference to us if 

the purpose of the Chinese in interrogating those prisoners was not 

to humiliate or degrade the CIA officers but simply to gain information? I don’t think so. Yet there is language in the Executive 

Order that would have offered the Chinese just such an argument. 

If it’s read in this manner, the Executive Order sets a dangerous 

precedent. 

It’s important to remember that all violations of Common Article 

3 are prohibited, not just the grave breaches outlined in the Military Commissions Act. Congress explicitly rejected the Administration’s proposal to limit U.S. obligations under Common Article 3 to 

torture and other war crimes. All of Common Article 3 applies to 

the CIA and the MCA did nothing to change that. 

Nor does the MCA authorize the enhanced interrogation techniques. To the contrary, Senator Warner said during debate that 

all the techniques banned by the Army field manual constitute 

grave breaches of Common Article 3 and are clearly prohibited 

under the MCA. No one contradicted that statement at any point 

in the Congressional debate, and no Member of Congress defended 

the specific techniques reportedly used by the CIA or claimed that 

those techniques would be legal. To the contrary, the Congressional 

record is crystal clear. The MCA was intended to rein in the CIA 

program. 

The highest-ranking uniformed lawyers of all four branches of 

the service agree that such techniques are illegal. They have all 

testified that the stress positions, the use of dogs, forced nudity 

and the like are illegal, inhumane and violate Common Article 3. 

This view is consistent with past U.S. practice, our own court 

precedent, and the views of our closest allies, as I outline in my 

written testimony. 

Administration officials frequently imply that the U.S. wants detainees to believe that they will be tortured by their American captors, yet we want the rest of the world to believe just the opposite. 

We can’t have it both ways. The problem now is not that the enemy 

knows what to expect from us; it’s that the rest of the world, including our allies, does not. There was a time, not that long ago, 

when the President declared that the demands of human dignity 

were ‘‘nonnegotiable,’’ when no one in the U.S. government questioned the meaning and scope of humane treatment provisions of 

the Geneva Conventions, and when the rest of the world viewed 

with great skepticism claims by U.S.-held prisoners that they had 

been abused. 

Today we are in a very different place. Our stand on human dignity seems to be that it is negotiable so long as there’s no permanent damage. The humane treatment provisions of Common Article 

3, which were clear to our military for more than half a century, 

are now considered by the Administration to be too vague to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
18 

force, and much of the rest of the world believes that the U.S. routinely tortures prisoners in our custody. 

Congress should ensure that the U.S. adheres to a single standard of humane treatment of all prisoners in its custody. The most 

effective way to accomplish this would be to make the McCain 

amendment’s Army field manual provision binding on all government agencies. For the safety of U.S. personnel and the integrity 

of human rights standards, the U.S. must make clear to the American people and to the rest of the world what it means when it says 

it will abide by its obligations under Common Article 3. 

Interrogation techniques need not cause permanent damage in 

order to be unlawful, but they have inflicted enormous damage on 

the honor and reputation of the United States. Your actions will 

help to determine whether that damage is permanent. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Massimino follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 1 here 48396.065
20 


Insert offset folio 2 here 48396.001
21 


Insert offset folio 3 here 48396.002
22 


Insert offset folio 4 here 48396.003
23 


Insert offset folio 5 here 48396.004
24 


Insert offset folio 6 here 48396.005
25 


Insert offset folio 7 here 48396.006
26 


Insert offset folio 8 here 48396.007
27 


Insert offset folio 9 here 48396.008
28 


Insert offset folio 10 here 48396.009
29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 48396.010
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 48396.011
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 48396.012
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 48396.013
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 48396.014
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 48396.015
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 48396.016
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 48396.017
37 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you very much, Ms. Massimino. 

Now we’ll turn to Professor Turner. 

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR ROBERT F. TURNER, SJD, 

CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY LAW, UNIVERSITY OF 

VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. TURNER. Vice Chairman Bond, Members of the Committee, 

it is a great honor to be here today. I have a rather lengthy prepared statement that I would propose to submit for the record. 

Vice Chairman BOND. That will be submitted, without objection. 

We appreciate your summarizing it in five minutes. 

Mr. TURNER. I believe I was invited because I co-authored an op 

ed article in the Washington Post on July 26 with former Marine 

Corps Commandant P.X. Kelley criticizing the Executive Order in 

question. My formal statement is divided into three parts, starting 

with constitutional law, then international law, then some public 

policy considerations which I would really like to expand upon. 

My constitution discussion is somewhat detailed because I think 

there’s a great deal of confusion about separation of powers in this 

area of foreign affairs and intelligence. I wrote a 1,700-page doctoral dissertation on this issue many years ago, and I’ve been frustrated by much of the debate on both sides. 

Guided by writers like John Locke and Montesquieu and William 

Blackstone, as well as their own experience under the Articles of 

Confederation, the Founding Fathers did not intend for Congress 

to have any role in what John Jay in Federalist 64 called ‘‘the business of intelligence’’ beyond providing funds. Jay discussed the importance of protecting intelligence sources and methods and explained that because Congress and the Senate could not be trusted 

to keep secrets, the Constitution had left the President ‘‘able to 

manage the business of intelligence as prudence might suggest.’’ 

The early appropriations for intelligence told the President to 

just tell us how much you spent and we will replenish the kitty, 

but do not tell us if you think anything has to be kept secret. In 

my statement I quote Thomas Jefferson and his rival Alexander 

Hamilton as well, explaining that the grant of ‘‘executive power’’ to 

the President in Article II, Section 1, carried with it the general 

management of foreign affairs, subject to a few narrowly-construed 

negatives or ‘‘exceptions’’ vested in the Senate or in Congress. I 

quote Chief Justice John Marshall in perhaps the most famous of 

all Supreme Court cases, Marbury v. Madison, as declaring ‘‘there 

exists no power’’ to control the President’s constitutional discretion 

in the foreign affairs area. 

I strongly suggest that one of our biggest problems in the post– 

Vietnam era has in fact been legislative law-breaking. Both the 

President and Congress must obey the higher law of the Constitution. To give you just one example, since the Chadha decision in 

1983 that outlawed legislative vetoes, Congress has enacted more 

than 500 of those unconstitutional acts. But there is no constitutional problem with Congress legislating to enforce Common Article 

3, because one of those ‘‘exceptions’’ expressly given to Congress is 

the power, in Article I, Section 8, to define and punish violations 

of the law of nations, and certainly that includes the Geneva ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
38 

ventions, which are the most subscribed-to conventions in the history of the world. 

The constitutional section of my prepared statement also notes 

that under our Constitution the President has sole power to interpret the international meaning of treaties in the nation’s dealing 

with the external world. Both the President and Congress have the 

power to violate treaty obligations, but I stress—and this is critically important—this is only true in terms of domestic United 

States law; and such actions make us an international lawbreaker 

liable to a variety of potential remedies available to other treaty 

partners. And while we’re talking about war crimes I would emphasize that includes the right of 193 other countries to try Americans for violations of Common Article 3 and any grave breaches of 

the law of armed conflict. There is no statute of limitations. People 

engaged in this behavior may spend the rest of their lives unable 

to travel to foreign countries. 

Part two of my statement addresses international law issues. It 

looks briefly at the history of Jus in Bello and, in particular, the 

travaux of Common Article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. 

In doing some additional research for today’s hearing, I must confess I was surprised to find a very strong case that Common Article 

3 was originally written to address the problem of civil wars and 

revolutions within a single state and that many prominent scholars 

have interpreted it that way, despite some last-minute changes in 

its wording that to me suggest it applies to all armed conflicts not 

involving sovereign states on both sides. 

I believe the United States is bound by Common Article 3, but 

were there no Common Article 3, we would still be bound by the 

humanitarian principles it embodies as a matter of customary 

international law. That has been the position of our government for 

many years. 

I’ve given you some examples of ways in which language similar 

to that in Common Article 3 has been interpreted by international 

tribunals like the European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. With the permission of the 

Committee, I would like to expand that section for the record in the 

next few days. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Without objection, it will be accepted. 

Mr. TURNER. Turning to policy issues, in 1809, Thomas Jefferson 

wrote a letter to newly-elected President James Madison in which 

he said, ‘‘It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the 

world to have the moral right on our side.’’ In his very excellent 

speech earlier this month to the Council on Foreign Relations, General Hayden emphasized ‘‘winning the war of ideas actually defines 

the long-term victory that we seek.’’ I could not agree more. And 

to win this war, America must maintain the high moral ground. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 48396.066
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 48396.018
41 


Insert offset folio 21 here 48396.019
42 


Insert offset folio 22 here 48396.020
43 


Insert offset folio 23 here 48396.021
44 


Insert offset folio 24 here 48396.022
45 


Insert offset folio 25 here 48396.023
46 


Insert offset folio 26 here 48396.024
47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 48396.025
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 48396.026
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 48396.027
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 48396.028
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 48396.029
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 48396.030
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 48396.031
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 48396.032
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 48396.033
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 48396.034
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 48396.035
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 48396.036
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 48396.037
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 48396.038
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 48396.039
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 48396.040
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 48396.041
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 48396.042
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 48396.043
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 48396.044
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 48396.045
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 48396.046
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 48396.047
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 48396.048
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 48396.049
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 48396.050
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 48396.051
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 48396.052
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 48396.053
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 48396.054
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 48396.055
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 48396.056
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 48396.057
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 48396.058
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 48396.059
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 48396.060
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 48396.061
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 48396.062
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 48396.063
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 48396.064
87 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you, Professor Turner. 

Without objection, the Committee has received statements from 

the American Psychological Association and the National Religious 

Campaign Against Torture. 

Without objection, those will be included in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CONCERNING

PSYCHOLOGY AND INTERROGATIONS

For more than two years the American Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates, has examined in depth the ethical aspects of psychologists’ involvement in interrogation settings. Members of the APA and outside groups with an interest in 

this issue have discussed and debated the appropriate role for psychologists in eliciting information in both domestic and foreign non-treatment related contexts. 

The APA has drawn three central conclusions from its work on this complex and 

challenging issue: 

• First, psychologists have important contributions to make in eliciting information that can be used to prevent violence and protect our nation’s security; 

• Second, there must be clear ethical guidelines governing processes by which information is elicited from an individual who may not be willing to provide the 

desired information; 

• Third, further research on all aspects of information-educing processes is critical. 

Psychologists’ Contributions to Eliciting Information 

Conducting an interrogation is inherently a psychological endeavor. Forming a relationship and building rapport have proven to be effective means of eliciting information. Psychology is central to this process because an understanding of an individual’s belief systems, desires, motivations, culture and religion likely will be essential in assessing how best to form a connection and facilitate educing accurate, 

reliable and actionable intelligence. Psychologists have expertise in human behavior, 

motivations and relationships. The background, training, and experience offered in 

psychology are therefore highly relevant to the process of creating and nurturing 

conditions that will maximize the likelihood of obtaining good and useful information. Psychologists have valuable contributions to make toward the goals of preventing violence and protecting our nation’s security through interrogation processes. 

Need for Strict Ethical Guidelines within Interrogation Policy 

The process of eliciting information from an unwilling individual must be governed by strict ethical guidelines. The APA has issued three statements in the past 

three years that speak directly to the ethics of psychologists’ involvement in information-eliciting processes. The central message of these texts, taken individually 

and as a group, is that there is no room for abuse in forming the kind of relationship that will result in gathering useful information and that respecting the individual’s dignity is essential in all aspects of these endeavors. 

The first of the three APA statements was issued in 2005, the Report of the Task 

Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. This task force report contained twelve statements that formed the initial position for APA on psychologists’ 

involvement in interrogation settings: 

1. Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training 

in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

2. Psychologists are alert to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and have an ethical responsibility to report these acts 

to the appropriate authorities. 

3. Psychologists who serve in the role of supporting an interrogation do not 

use health care related information from an individual’s medical record to 

the detriment of the individual’s safety and well-being. 

4. Psychologists do not engage in behaviors that violate the laws of the 

United States, although psychologists may refuse for ethical reasons to follow laws or orders that are unjust or that violate basic principles of human 

rights. 

88 

5. Psychologists are aware of and clarify their role in situations where the 

nature of their professional identity and professional function may be ambiguous. 

6. Psychologists are sensitive to the problems inherent in mixing potentially 

inconsistent roles such as health care provider and consultant to an interrogation, and refrain from engaging in such multiple relationships. 

7. Psychologists may serve in various national security-related roles, such 

as a consultant to an interrogation, in a manner that is consistent with the 

Ethics Code, and when doing so psychologists are mindful of factors unique 

to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration. 

8. Psychologists who consult on interrogation techniques are mindful that 

the individual being interrogated may not have engaged in untoward behavior and may not have information of interest to the interrogator. 

9. Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality. 

10. Psychologists are aware of and do not act beyond their competencies, 

except in unusual circumstances, such as set forth in the Ethics Code. 

11. Psychologists clarify for themselves the identity of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their clients. 

12. Psychologists consult when they are facing difficult ethical dilemmas. 

Central ethical issues that govern psychologists’ involvement in interrogations 

emerge from these twelve statements of the Task Force Report on Psycholoqical Ethics and National Security: 

• Psychologists must never engage in, promote, or facilitate torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; • Psychologists who become aware that torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment or punishment is being perpetrated have an ethical responsibility to 

report such abuse to appropriate authorities; • Psychologists must keep separate their roles as healthcare providers from their 

non-healthcare provider roles; and • Psychologists must stay within the bounds of their competence. 

The following year, the APA’s governing body, the Council of Representatives, 

adopted the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and 

Degradinq Treatment or Punishment. This resolution elaborated upon key elements 

of the 2005 task force report. The 2006 resolution reemphasized the absolute prohibition against torture in several clauses: 

BE IT RESOLVED that regardless of their roles, psychologists shall not 

knowingly engage in, tolerate, direct, support, advise, or offer training in 

torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, 

or degrading punishment; 

BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall not provide knowingly any research, instruments, or knowledge that facilitates the practice of torture or 

other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, 

or degrading punishment; 

BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall not knowingly participate in 

any procedure in which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment is used or. 

threatened . . . ; 

The 2006 resolution reiterated that psychologists have an ethical responsibility to 

report acts of abuse: 

BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall be alert to acts of torture and 

other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and have an ethical responsibility to report these acts to 

the appropriate authorities; 

In addition, the 2006 resolution drew from international human rights instruments by adopting the definition of torture set forth in the UN Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and 

by stating that psychologists must work in according with human rights instruments relevant to their roles: 

BE IT RESOLVED that, in accordance with Article I of the United Nations 

Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, [T]he term ‘‘torture’’ means any act 

by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or 

a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or 

89 

a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on 

discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or 

at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official 

or other person acting in an official [e.g., governmental, religious, political, 

organizational] capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only 

from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions [in accordance with both 

domestic and international law]; 

BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the APA’s long-standing commitment 

to basic human rights including its position against torture, psychologists 

shall work in accordance with international human rights instruments relevant to their roles; 

The 2006 Resolution thus emphasizes and elaborates upon key aspects of the 2005 

Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security. In 2007, the APA issued a third resolution titled Reaffirmation of the American 

Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in 

the United States Code as ‘‘Enemy Combatants.’’ 

The APA’s 2007 resolution elaborates upon several elements central to the 2006 

resolution and the 2005 task force report. The 2007 resolution identifies techniques 

that fall under the definition of ‘‘torture’’ and other ‘‘cruel, inhuman, and degrading 

treatment,’’ thus adding specificity to the concepts of torture and abuse: 

BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under 

the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, 

but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists 

against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other 

form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, 

induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; as well as the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation 

process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to 

threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a 

manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that 

a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened 

use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the 

individual’s family; 

In addition, the 2007 resolution further elaborates the ethical responsibility of 

psychologists to cooperate with oversight activities: 

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association asserts 

that all psychologists with information relevant to the use of any method 

of interrogation constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment have an ethical responsibility to inform their superiors 

of such knowledge, to inform the relevant office of inspector generals when 

appropriate, and to cooperate fully with all oversight activities, including 

hearings by the United States Congress and all branches of the United 

States government, to examine the perpetration of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment against individuals in United 

States custody, for the purpose of ensuring that no individual in the custody of the United States is subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; 

The 2007 resolution also calls upon U.S. legal systems to reject testimony that results from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment: 

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association, in order 

to protect against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 

punishment, and in order to mitigate against the likelihood that unreliable 

and/or inaccurate information is entered into legal proceedings, calls upon 

United States legal systems to reject testimony that results from torture or 

cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. 

90 

Central to the APA’s analysis of these issues in the 2005 task force report and 

the 2006 and 2007 resolutions is that the appropriate question is not whether psychologists may contribute to eliciting information to prevent acts of violence and 

protect our nation’s security, but rather how they may do so in an ethical manner. 

Need for Relevant Research 

The third and final conclusion that the APA has drawn from its work in this area 

is that essential research is lacking. Creating a research agenda is critical and cannot wait. A cursory review of the issues yields questions that are central to the process of eliciting information but that have little basis in extant research. Five examples are: 

• What is the most effective means of eliciting information from a recalcitrant 

subject? 

• What indicia may be used to differentiate when a subject is providing accurate 

and actionable intelligence from when a subject is intentionally providing false 

or useless information? 

• How may culture, ethnicity, religion and gender facilitate, or hinder, the process 

of eliciting information? 

• What characteristics make an individual a more—or less—effective interrogator? 

• What background and training best prepares interrogators for their task? 

These are a very few of the myriad questions for which research is necessary. In 

line with the November 2006 Intelligence Science Board Study Report on Educinq 

Information, APA recommends that this Committee authorize development and 

funding of a research ‘‘center of excellence’’ on educing information under the Director of National Intelligence. Five and ten years from now we should not be forced 

to rely on anecdotal accounts of what is or is not effective interrogation. The APA 

has been actively engaged in examining the ethical role of psychologists in interrogation settings. Research will be critical for psychologists to move our understanding of these processes to a deeper and more effective level. 

For more information please contact: Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, Director, Ethics 

Office, American Psychological Association, 202.336.6006 or sbehnke@apa.org. 

91 

STATEMENT OF REV. GEORGE HUNSINGER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS

CAMPAIGN AGAINST TORTURE CONCERNING CIA INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this written statement to the committee. 

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is a campaign of over 

125 religious organizations working together to abolish U.S. policy permitting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone, without exception. 

NRCAT members include representatives from the Catholic, evangelical Christian, 

mainline Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Jewish, Quaker, 

Muslim, and Sikh communities. Additional information about NRCAT, our membership, and our work are attached to this statement. 

NRCAT believes that torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that 

all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators 

and victims. It contradicts our nation’s most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. 

Since the disclosure of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, through the reports by released detainees and human rights groups, and up to the July 20 Executive Order 

by President Bush, we have been aware of the fact that the CIA has engaged in 

an interrogation program that uses techniques involving torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Although the Executive Order now says it prohibits 

such treatment of detainees, it allows the CIA to continue to use undefined and undisclosed ‘‘alternative interrogation techniques,’’ creating serious doubt as to whether the prohibition is real. And, as you know, the Executive Order does not close or 

prohibit the use of secret prisons—the only purpose of which is perceived to be to 

engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment—nor does it prohibit 

sending detainees to countries which have been known to torture for interrogation. 

With the President’s Executive Order and the accompanying statements of the 

President and the Director of the CIA, the United States Government has reaffirmed its policy of treating some human beings as outside the protections of any 

law and of using—in the name of national security—techniques that amount to torture. We believe that the United States should be doing just the opposite—affirming 

the right of every human being to be protected by the laws of civilized society and 

decrying any treatment that comes close to the edge of torture or cruel, inhuman 

or degrading treatment. 

I am not speaking today on whether or not torture ‘‘works,’’ the implications of 

our country’s use of torture on our military personnel when they are captured, or 

the effect our use of torture has on how the United States is perceived around the 

world. While I believe the conclusion to each of those discussions is a compelling 

decision not to use torture, I am speaking to you today only from the moral or religious perspective. NRCAT is submitting this statement, because regardless of what 

anyone believes about torture’s effectiveness (and I believe the overwhelming evidence is that torture is not effective), it is morally wrong and should never be used 

by the United States against anyone under any circumstances. 

The urge to humiliate, torment and degrade lurks deep within the human breast. 

Under conducive circumstances no one can entirely withstand it. Sadism is not born 

but made. That is why torture, once chosen, cannot readily be contained, and is soon 

preferred. Torture, once chosen, both proliferates and corrupts. Proliferation is its 

dimension of breadth, and corruption its dimension of depth. Torture undermines 

victim and torturer alike. It corrodes the society that permits it. It overthrows the 

rule of law, and then destroys the tyrannies that it spawns. Corrupting the soul, 

it eventually corrupts everything in its path. Torture is itself the ticking bomb. 

We speak to the issue of torture and the CIA’s ‘‘alternative interrogation techniques’’ from our common religious principles that affirm the inherent worth and 

dignity of all people. Although our beliefs are rooted in many different religions, and 

although we worship in different ways and in different languages, we stand firmly 

united and unswerving on this crucial moral issue. Our condemnation of torture is 

not based on any political opinion or on the laws or treaties of any nations. Rather, 

we are guided by a higher law that serves as a compass for all of humanity. 

Continuation of the CIA’s ‘‘alternative’’ interrogation program, including the use 

of secret prisons and rendition for torture, is wrong. As people of faith—who value 

our common humanity and our religious responsibility to treat all people with decency and the due process protections of civilized law—we urge you immediately to 

stop the use of the ‘‘alternative interrogation techniques’’, to close all secret prisons, 

and to stop rendition to torture. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Now, because of time constraints, I will 

not only call on the distinguished Senator from California to ask 

92 

questions, but I will pass to her the ultimate weapon of authority, 

the small wooden gavel. I thank our witnesses for their testimony. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 

Vice Chairman. We understand that you have to leave. The two of 

us will carry on here. 

I want to begin by thanking the five of you for coming here 

today. I want to thank you for the papers you’ve submitted. They 

are not classified, and it’s my intention to take them out and take 

them with me and really read them as carefully as I possibly can. 

One of the problems we have here is that we can’t really take notes 

with us of classified information. So I think your history, your 

ideas, your thoughts are really, really important. 

Let me give you a summary statement. I very much agree with 

you. I think that this is essentially a war of ideas. I think our values are being tested. I think the people we interrogate are not people who are drafted into the North Korean army or into the German army during World War II. They are hard, fast ideologues 

who are prepared to give their lives for what they believe, either 

by exploding themselves or whatever else. 

And I candidly believe that some of this just doesn’t work. Although we’re not often told this, we probably get a lot of bad intelligence in the process as well. We probably get some good intelligence in the process as well. 

I also agree with you on the President’s July 20, 2007, statement. 

I’d just like to point something out. On page 2, subsection (e), 

where it states that ‘‘wilful and outrageous acts of personal abuse 

done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in 

a manner so serious,’’ et cetera, but I gather if it’s done for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence, it’s okay. I think that’s a real 

problem with the statement. 

Have you looked at that? Do you agree with this, or do you have 

any other thoughts? 

General OTSTOTT. I absolutely agree with you on that. It opens 

the door for bad behavior. 

Mr. TURNER. You will remember from law school, no doubt, the 

Latin expression ‘‘expressio unius est exclusio allerius’’—the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. And when you say 

if you do this for the purpose of humiliating people, you can’t 

threaten to sexually mutilate them and so forth, implicit in that, 

at least a reasonable interpretation of that is that if your purpose 

is, as you say, collecting intelligence or trying to protect against the 

next terrorist attack, then these things are not off limits. 

That’s very offensive. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse, you’re on. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I’d like to join you in thanking these witnesses. I found their testimony very helpful. Professor Turner, it’s nice to see a professor 

from my alma mater here testifying. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, that’s why you’re so smart. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the record, she was referring to Professor Turner. [Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thought, Ms. Massimino, that your comparisons with some of the historical antecedents where we were on 

the other side was extremely helpful to understand particularly the 

93 

episode of the Japanese officer sentenced to hard labor for war 

crimes for the techniques that you indicated. 

Colonel Kleinman, you entered the service in 1985? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. I was commissioned in 1985, yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you’re still on active duty today? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. I’m an active reservist. I’m the senior reserve 

intelligence officer for the Air Force Special Operations Command. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the 22 years that you have been serving, how much of that time has been dedicated to interrogation and 

human intelligence collection? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. One hundred percent, sir. That’s my career. 

The sum total of my career has been in human intelligence, much 

of it relating to either interrogation or resisting interrogation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you’ve been an advisor to intelligence 

teams and interrogators operating truly at the forefront of our most 

significant conflicts, correct? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. Yes, sir. I’ve conducted interrogations myself. 

I was also a team chief during the Gulf War, where I had interrogators from all the services under my command as we interrogated 

literally thousands of Iraqis. I was an advisor to a Special Operations Task Force on Interrogation during Iraqi Freedom. So I’ve 

had a chance to really look at the academic theoretical side, but I 

am steeped in the operational side. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you look at what we’re allowed to do to 

collect information under the Army field manual, there are arguably two constraints on it, two limiting factors. One is the limiting 

factor that we have discussed here, the sort of moral limiting factor, the if we do it to them they can do it to us factor—the sort 

of golden rule of interrogation, if you will. 

Let me ask you, just for purposes of argument, to set that aside 

for a minute and consider, as a real career expert in intelligencegathering from people who you have custody over, if you could set 

aside the rest of it, if you were in a dark room, you knew nobody 

would ever look, the intelligence that you needed to get was of urgent value, would you feel that from a point of view of intelligencegathering effectiveness you would or could or should go beyond the 

Army field manual and the techniques that are authorized in the 

Army field manual in order to obtain that intelligence? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. Senator, I thank you so much for that question, because I think I’ve been waiting twenty years to answer it. 

That is, absolutely not. I do not perceive the construct of the Army 

field manual places undue limitations in terms of what I need to 

do to generate useful information. That’s the key—accurate, useful 

information, not leading questions to force somebody to say what 

they think I want to hear. My goal is to explore the full spectrum 

of their knowledgeability, where they answer not only the questions I ask but also, by developing what I call operational accord, 

I am able to build a relationship such that they see it’s in their 

best interests, under non-pressure, non-coercive circumstances that 

it would be in their best interest to answer these questions fully. 

I’ve had situations during the Iraq war where we were very interested in the location of SCUD missile systems. I had a source 

that nobody suspected of having knowledge in this area. At the 

conclusion of four hours of interrogating him about other eleVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:18 Jul 09, 2009 Jkt 045037 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\48396.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
94 

ments—and it was a treasure trove of information—we had a relationship such that as I was getting up, shuffling my papers, he 

said, ‘‘Didn’t you want to know where the SCUD missiles were?’’ 

So I said, ‘‘We’ve spent four hours already, I’m tired, can’t we do 

this tomorrow. [Laughter.] 

Colonel KLEINMAN. I, of course, sat back down and he gave us 

incredible information. And the reason, he told me, was that he 

was so amazed at his treatment. I hoped, he said, that if I was 

going to be captured, that I would be captured by one of your allies, 

not by the Americans, because I was told you were animals. But 

you’ve treated me like a gentleman. You’ve treated me with respect, and you are clearly knowledgeable of my customs and my 

culture. I’m more than happy to answer any question you have. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I follow up? I’m afraid something you 

said might be taken out of context. I’d like to go back and ask you 

to go over with it again with me. You said briefly ‘‘I am not limited 

by the Army field manual.’’ When you said that, I assume you did 

not mean that in the actions that you undertake in your professional capacity there’s anything you do that’s not limited by the 

Army field manual, as a matter of law. 

I assume that what you meant to say was that you did not see 

the constraints of the Army field manual—the moral constraints, 

the legal constraints—as in any way inhibiting the effectiveness of 

your examination techniques—that you could do everything you 

wanted to, that you missed for nothing because of those restrictions. Is that what you intended to say? 

Colonel KLEINMAN. Senator, I am forever in your debt for allowing me to correct myself, because that’s precisely what I meant to 

say. I don’t see those as limiting my ability to work—the spirit or 

the letter of that guidance. My approach was what we call a relationship-based approach—far more than just rapport-building. I’ve 

never felt any necessity or operational requirement to bring physical, psychological or emotional pressure on a source to win their 

cooperation. 

So, following the guidance in the field manual, I feel unconstrained in my ability to work in the paradigm that I’ve taught for 

so many years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Can you assume another country in which 

there is no such constraint, in which the Chinese feel at liberty to 

put American prisoners into prolonged stress positions or the Japanese feel free to take American prisoners of war and lean them 

against the wall on their fingertips for extended hours, or other 

such devices that would exceed the limitations of the Army field 

manual are pursued? Why is it that those interrogators utilize 

those techniques? Is it just professional disagreement? Do they 

have a sort of different view of what is effective? Why do they do 

it? 

Again, setting aside the moral constraints, which I know animate 

you very much and me as well, but for purposes of discussion, from 

a pure intelligence collection perspective and setting aside any 

moral or golden rule limitations on the behavior that you would 

want to limit yourself to, why is that some interrogators would feel 

that it was appropriate to go beyond what’s permitted by the Army 

field manual? 

95 

Colonel KLEINMAN. As a graduate of the University of California, 

I tip my hat to the University of Virginia for the critical thinking 

skills that are taught to the graduates, because, sir, that gets to 

the very heart of the matter, and it is this: there are two objectives 

that one can pursue in interrogation—either winning cooperation 

or compliance. They seem very similar, but there are profound differences. 

Compliance means to take action that’s against your interests, 

that you don’t support, and frequently has nothing to do with intelligence. Cooperation is winning a source’s willingness to provide 

useful information. What the Chinese were interested in, what the 

Koreans were interested in, what the North Vietnamese were interested in was maybe five percent intelligence, 95 percent compliance, meaning creating propaganda. 

Now that’s a whole different paradigm. And the approaches that 

they used—like sleep deprivation and torture—ultimately will get 

any one of us in this room to do things that we couldn’t imagine 

today. But it doesn’t necessarily mean our ability to provide useful 

information. 

The other part of that paradigm is the fact that obtaining intelligence—as I mentioned in my opening remarks—is getting access 

to somebody’s functioning memory. If you think back to just the 

panel before ours, if I were to question each of you systematically, 

under the best of circumstances, to tell me what happened—who 

said what, when, what were the proposals, who agreed, who disagreed and so forth—we would find some real deficits in your memory—again under perfect circumstances. 

Imagine now if I had had you standing for twelve hours or in 

stress positions and now I’m asking you to call upon your memory. 

Even if you wanted to, even if you were wilful, you would be undermined in your ability to do so. So I think the key point, sir, is are 

we trying to produce compliance, which is propaganda, or cooperation, which leads to intelligence. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Madam Chair, thank you for letting me go 

over. It’s been enormously valuable to me to hear firsthand from 

somebody who has such firsthand lifelong experience in the field in 

this discussion. So thank all of the panel. Colonel, I thank you, and 

I thank the Chair for letting me expend the time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You are very welcome. Let me ask one last 

question. 

This is a very troubling aspect, I think, of our processes now, and 

the question really comes how to handle it. There is a real element 

of fear that our country is vulnerable and that we know there are 

people that want to hurt us and hurt us in the most grievous manner possible. Therefore, to be able to get the maximum amount of 

information I think the country has been somewhat humiliated by 

the fact that Usama bin Ladin has never been found. Therefore, 

there’s a lot of pressure to try to find as much as possible out about 

al–Qa’ida, its whereabouts, its training grounds, its leadership, and 

to be able to get to them. 

You have submitted, all of you, that you do not believe that socalled EITs—and we won’t say what they are, but let’s use your description of them, whether that description is right or wrong—enhanced interrogation techniques are not necessarily effective. 

96 

At this stage, how would you recommend that we proceed? How 

do you recommend we find the information that we need? It is 

amazing to me that, despite a $50 million reward, no one has come 

forward with information with respect to the whereabouts of 

Usama bin Ladin. One has to assume that there are a lot of people 

that actually know where he is who could really benefit from that 

money. 

But I think the level of fear, the level of cooption, the level of 

ideologic zealotry that is connected to this fanaticism is really unprecedented in our history. 

I know you’ll say the manual, and I happen to agree with that. 

But if you have any other comments I’d like to take just one last 

shot at hearing what they are. 

Ms. MASSIMINO. If I might, Senator, there is another field manual that I think is important, which really gets to the heart of your 

question of how we win a battle against an enemy like that. And 

that is the manual that General Petraeus oversaw before he left to 

take over in Iraq—the counterinsurgency manual. There I think 

that the field manual on interrogations fits like a glove with the 

overall strategy outlined in the counterinsurgency manual, which 

is that you seek to de-legitimize the enemy in the eyes of the population from which it gets its recuperative power, its recruits. You 

seek to separate the enemy from its support base. And one of the 

ways of doing that is to maintain the moral high ground, to criminalize the actions of the enemy in the society where they are operating. 

And one of the warnings in that manual is the degree to which 

our forces and our personnel use the methods of the enemy. We 

then forfeit our benefit in this asymmetric war against them. They 

will use methods that we would never contemplate. That’s their 

supposed advantage. 

Ours is that our values and our ideas are better and we don’t 

want to forfeit that. If we forfeit that, that’s the message of the 

counterinsurgency manual, as I read it, and it really gets to the 

heart of what you’re asking about, I think. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Any other last comment? 

General OTSTOTT. I would just comment that we are in what has 

been described as a long war or a persistent conflict, and these are 

religious zealots. Our most dangerous enemies are Islamic jihadist 

fundamentalist zealots. The people that know exactly where Usama 

bin Ladin is at any given time probably are no more than a dozen 

or a hundred. And they are zealots and they are religiously motivated. I don’t think you could pay them enough money to come out 

of the cave and say he’s in there, because that would just go 

against everything that they are very, very strongly religiously motivated by. 

So it comes down to the war of ideas. We’ve got to somehow 

spread the ideas we have that are on a higher plain and get them 

to disown jihadism. We need to offer ideas in their cultural understanding that prevents jihadism from growing amongst the people 

who are disadvantaged, who have no hope, who have no economy 

to speak of and have no purpose in life except to pick up an AK– 

47 and wage war against the ‘‘crusaders’’ or the infidels. Somehow 

we’ve got to get beyond the idea that we can torture information 

97 

out of somebody and make them tell us where Usama bin Ladin 

is and then all will be well. 

Mr. TURNER. About two years ago I going on vacation, riding 

across the country with my son, when Voice of America called and 

said what do you think about all this stuff about torture. My response was, ‘‘some very good people have done some very bad 

things for very good reasons,’’ which is to say good people are trying to stop terrorism and they think this is the way to do it. 

I don’t think it’s the way to do it. The people I’ve talked to in 

the FBI and people here on this panel say that doesn’t work. I 

don’t agree we necessarily need to have a uniform standard. That 

is to say it may well be the CIA has a very senior Islamic scholar 

who they could send in and engage in a debate about what the 

Qur’an means. For a Christian Army sergeant to go in and do that 

would be absolutely asinine. So, to me, the standard ought to be 

‘‘humane treatment.’’ 

Common Article 3 and customary international law require humane treatment. It’s a fairly high standard. I love the test the 

Army uses, which they call their modified golden rule. Ask yourself 

how you would feel if they did this to our prisoners. If you find it 

objectionable, don’t do it. 

We have the ticking bomb scenario. My guess is we’ll never have 

that case. If we did, I’m not prepared to say that I would risk 2,000 

or 100,000 lives in a setting involving WMD protecting the civil liberties of a terrorist. We would violate the law. We would be vulnerable to war crimes trials. But I can understand somebody making 

that policy judgment. But ultimately you certainly don’t do it by 

issuing an Executive Order saying as long as you don’t want to humiliate a detainee you can rip his fingernails out. 

We have to maintain the high moral ground. I think the Director 

of the CIA was exactly right when he said this is a struggle for 

ideas. The General just said that. We can’t win that struggle if the 

world and our own people see us as barbarians. 

Colonel KLEINMAN. I just wanted to answer your question this 

way. We have actually encountered this very same circumstance 

once before, back in 1941. When we went to interrogate Japanese 

prisoners of war, they were seen as zealots. The language was ‘‘impenetrable.’’ The culture was ‘‘inscrutable.’’ It was beyond our understanding. But we had an approach, conducted by a small group 

of people who spent a lot of time in Japan, who spoke the language, 

who were absolutely comfortable in that culture. They used what 

I call enlightened cultural finesse. 

These prisoners were taught bushido from the youngest age, 

where not only would they resist; they could not even envision becoming a prisoner. But they found themselves as prisoners and 

they found people who understood them, who could speak the language, who treated them with respect under that code, and it was 

amazing the intelligence that flowed and the relationships that developed. It was beyond what everybody thought possible. Everybody thought the Japanese only knew force. And that’s what was 

used other places and was ineffective. 

So I think probably it’s a mistake to say that we’ve never quite 

encountered this type of zealotry. We have, but America was successful before. 

98 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. KELLER. Senator, I’d like to say, just briefly, first of all, we 

all know what’s at stake. I will tell you on September 11 I was 

rounding the bend at the Lincoln Tunnel when the first plane hit 

the World Trade Center and had an unobstructed view of that. So 

in my being I understand this, and rushed to the Bellevue emergency room to do what we could. 

These methods—first of all, taking it from the side of the interrogators and why it’s so important to have clear standards, we like 

to think of people who would torture as two-headed monsters, and 

we’ve learned very clearly in the psychological literature that it’s 

easier to do these things than we’d like to think it is. That’s why 

there’s a need for very clear guidance, that these methods in no 

way are allowed. 

The other thing, from a health perspective, that really frightens 

me is that I know from my colleagues caring for torture survivors 

around the world that those at risk of being tortured, individuals 

speaking out for democracy and freedom, are at far greater risk 

now of being tortured, I believe, than they were before. So we’ve 

made the world a much more dangerous and, I believe, far more 

unhealthy place for ourselves and for civilians around the world. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. On that note, let me once again say thank 

you to the five of you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]