Sportive Thoughts

TOP ~ .. Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General CIA LOAN COPY DO NOT COPY SPECIAL REVIEW i I ~ COUNTERTERRORISM DETENTION AND INTERROGAnON ACTIVlTIES (SEPTEMBER 2001- OCTOBER 2003) (2003-7123.IG) 7 May 2004 Copy 43 TO "\ TOP='1S~£i:L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION SUMMARY n ••••••••••••• 1 ~ •••• n uu 2 9 BACKGROUND; DISCUSSION' OH, ~ u .......... •••••••••• u •••••• l1 11 12 GENESIS OF POST 9/11 A GENCYDETENTlON AND INnmROGATION A-CTIVITIES•.. , ~ n ••••• 0 ••• HH'· ••••• 0 ••••• 0 , . , •••• ,OnO, .0 THE CAP'I'URE OF ABU ZUJ3AWAH AND DEVELOPMENT OF EITs DoJ LEGAL ANALYSIS ,16 NOTICE TO AND CONSULTATION WITH EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL OFFICL4LS••.•. ~ 23 t •••••• u •••• , •••••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u ••• : u GUIDANCE ON CAPTURE, DETENTION, AND INTERROGATION......... ,....... 24 ..........e nue25 DCI Confinement Guidelines DCI Interrogation Guidelines Medical Guidelines Training for Il1terrogations DETENTION A1'lD INTERROGATION OPERATIONS AT ••• ••.•• • ••••••• ·H 27 29 31 31 33 ............................................................................................ 34 ..............................................................34 Videotapes of Interrogations • •• · . H • • •• 36 ·..··· H •••·••• . . • u.··.. ·· 37 Background and Detainees 38 _ ~ 39 Guidance Prior to DCI Guidelines Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques Handgun andPow'er Drill Threats .~ UHu · , .40 ..41 .41 42 Smoke.u 43 Stress Positions Stiff Brush and Shackles Waterboard Technique 44 44 44 ...........46 ..............................................................48 ................................................: 50 ................................ 54 ........................................................57 . _ _ ................. , '1 58 61 65 ...................................................................... 67 Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques Pressure Points Mock Executioru;; Use. of Smoke Use of Cold : h 4 69 69 70 72 ,.u 73 Water Dotlsing Hard Takedolvn : ,.76 77 TOp 5B€RIilT.( Abuse .Program.. n .••" at Other Locations Outside of the CTC " HU h." ••• n H u u •• 78 ....................................80 ANALYTICAL SUPPORT TO INTERROGATIONS 82 85 EFFECTIVENESS POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS REGARD1NG TIlE DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRMf 91 Policy Considerations Concerns Over Participation in the ere Program ENDGAME U •••• h •••• ' : 92 94 'n 95 CONCLUSIONS..; RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES ; 100 106 A. Procedures and Resources B. Chronology of Significant Events C. Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Interrogation of an AI-Qa'ida Operative,l August 2002 . D. DCI Guidelines on Confinement Conditions for CIA Detainees, 28 January 2003 lOP 8FCPF't! F. Draft Office of Medical Services Guidelines on Medical and Psychological Support to Detainee Interrogations, 4 September 2003 ~I OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SPECIAL REVIEW ( ~ COUNTERTERRORISM DETENTION AND INTERROGATION ACI1VITIES (SEPTEMBER 2001 • OCTOBER 2003) (2003-7123-IG) 7 May 2004 INTRODUCTION j . 2.. ~ In November 2002, the Deputy Director for Operations (000) informed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) that the Agency had established a program in the Counterterrorist Center to detain arid interrogate terrorists at sites abroad ("the eTe Program"). He also informed orG that he had' st learned of and had dis a tched a team to investigate In January 2003, the 000 informed GIG that he had received allegations that Agency personnel had used unauthorized interrogation techniques with a detainee, ,Abd Al,Rahim Al-Nashiri, at another foreign site, and requested that I j OlG investigate. Separately, OIG received information that some employees were concerned that certain covert Agency activities at an overseas detention and interrogation site might involve violations of human rights. In January 2003, OlG initiated a review of Agency counterterrorism detention and interro ation activities_ and the inddentwith Al-Nashiri.l This Review covers the eriod Se tember 2001 to midOctober 2003.2 SUMMARY the DO assigned responsibility for implementing capture and detention authority to the DDO and to the Director of the DO Counterterrorist Center (D/ CTC). When U.S. military forces began' d~tainin individuals in Af hanistan and at Guantanarno B.a I Cuba j I I I I I the Agency began to detain and interrogate directly a number of suspected terrorists. The capture and initial Agency interrogation of the first high value detainee, Abu Zubaydah, 1 ~ Appendix A addresses the Procedures and Resources that OIG employed in conducting this Review. The Review does not address renditions conducted by the Agency Or inten:ogations conductedjOintlywi~e U.S. military. . 2 (U) Appendix B is a chronology of significant events that occurred dqrlng Ute period of this RevIew. I I I 1 [ in March 2002, presented the Agency with a significant dilemma:! The Agency was under pressure to do everything possible to prevent additional terrorist attacks. Senior Agency officials believed Abu Zubaydah was withholding information that could not be obtained through then-authorized interrogation techniques. Agency officials believed that a more robust approach was necessary to elicit I:h.reat information from Abu Zubaydah and possibly from other senior Al-Qa'ida high value detainees. 5. ~ The conduct of detention and interrogation activities presented new challenges for CIA. These included determining where detention and interrogation facilities could be securely located and operated, and identifying and preparing qualified personnel to manage and carry out detention and interrogation activities. With the knowledge that AI-Qa'ida personnel had been trained in the use of resistance techniques, another challenge was to identify interrogation techniques that Agency personnel coul~ lawfully use to overcome the resistance. In this context, CTC, with the assistance of the Office of Technical Service (OTS), prop<>sed certain more coercive physical. techniques to use on Abu Zubaydah. All of theSe considerations took place against the backdrop of pre-September 11, 2001 CIA avoidance of int-errogations and repeated u.s. policy statements condemning torture and advocating the hUmane treatment of political prisoners and detainees in the international community. 6. (~ The Office of General Counsel (OGC) took the lead in determining and documenting the legal parameters and constraints for interrogations. OGCconducted independent research 4 ~ The use of ·'high value·' or "medium value" to describe terrorist targets and detainees In this Review is based on how they have been generally categorized by eTC. ere distinguishes targets according to the quality 01 the intelligence that they arc believed IL't!on. SfRE Training is offered by the U.s. Army, Navy, and Ai! Force to its personnel, particularly air crews and special ope.rations forces who are of greatest risk of being captured during military operations. SERE students are taught how to survive in var,ious terrain,. evade and endure captiVity, resist interrogations, and conduct themselves to prevent harm to themselves and fellow prisoners of war. 33. ~ CIA's ars obtained data on the use of the proposed Errs and their potentiallong-terrn psychological effects on . . detainees. OTS input was based in part on information solicited from a number of psychologists and knowledgeable academics in the area of psychopathology. 34. 1'ffi( OT5 also solicited input from DoD/Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) regarding techniques used in its SERE training and any subsequent psychological effects on students. DoD /JPRA concluded no long-term psychological effects resulted from use of the BITs, including the II1.ost taxing technique, the waterboard, on SERE students.l4 The OTS analysis was used by OGC in evaluating the legality of techniques. 35. ~ Eleven EITs were proposed for adoption in the eTe Interrogation Program. As proposed, use of EITs would . be subject to a competent evaluation of the medical and psychological state of the detainee. The Agency eliminated one proposed technique~afterlearnirig from Do} that this could delay the le~following textbox identifies the 10 BITs the Agency described to Do}. 1 I I I \ I 1 14 ~ According to indMduals with authorltaUve knowledge of the SERE program. the w.terboard was used for demonstration purposes on a very small number of students in a class. Except for Navy SERE training, use of the '\'{aterboard was discontinued because oi its dramatic effect on the students who were subjects. I I I I I T Enhanced Interrogation Techniques • The attention grasp consists 01 grasping the detainee with both hands, with one hand on each side 01 the collar op€!1ing, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the detainee is drawn toward the interrogator. During the walling technique, the detainee is pulled forward and then qUickly and .firmly pushed into a .fle;4ble lalsewall so that his shoulder blades hit the wall. His head and neck are supported with a rolled towel to prevent whiplash. places an open palm on either side of the detainee's lace and the interrogator's fingertips are kept well away from the detainee's eyes. • With the facial or insult slap, the fingers are slightly spread apart. The interrogator's hand makes contact with the area between the tip of the detainee's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. in cramped confinement, the detainee is placed in a confined space, typically a small or large box, which is usually dark. Confinement in the smaller space lasts no mOre than two oou.rs and in the larger space it can last up to 18 hours. • + The facial hold is used to hold the detainee's head immobile. The interrogator • • • Insects placed in a confinement box involve placing a harmless insect in the box with the detainee. . During wall standing, the detainee may stand about 4 to 5 feet from a wall with his feet spread approximately to his shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him and his lingers rest on the wall to support all of his body weight. The detainee is not allowed to rep osition his hands or feet. + The applicalion of stress positions may include haVing the detainee sit on the floor with his legs extended straight out in front of him with his arms raised above his head or kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle. • • Sleep deprivation will not exceed 11 days at a time. The application of the waterboard techniq\1e involves binding the detainee to a bench with his feet elevated above his head. The detainee's head is immobilized and an interrogator places a cloth over the detainee's mouth and nose while pouring water onto the cloth in a controlled manner. Airflow is restricted for 20.to 40 seconds and the technique produces the sensation of drowning and suffocation. -~-------- ----- - - - DoJ LEGAL ANALYSIS 36. ~ CIA's OGC sought gUidance from Do) ardin the Ie a1 bounds of EITs vis-a-vis individuals detained The ensuing legal opinions focus on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention),l5 especially as implemented in the U.S. criminal code, 18 U.S.c. 23402340A. 37. (U //FOUO) The Torture Convention specifically prohibits "torture/' which it defines in Article 1 as: . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intenti07lally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or 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 instigatil'n of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction. [Emphasis added.] Article 4 of the Torture Convention provides that states party to the Convention are to ensure that all acts of "torture" are offenses under their criminal laws. Article 16 additionally provides that each state party "shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruet inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not am01.mt to acts of torture as defined in Article 1." j I d"'~"'- 15 (V/ /FOUO) Ad<:cmding to the Chief, Medical Services, OMS was neither consulted nor involved 41 the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of EITs, nor prOVided with the OTS report cited in the OLC opinion. In retrospect, based on the OLC extrads of the 01'5 report, OMS contends that the reported sophistication of the preliminary EIT review was exaggerated, at least as it reJal1!d to the watemoard, and that the power of this EIT was appreciably overstated in the report. Furthermore, OMS contends that the expertise of tbe SERE psychologist/interrogators on 1'rsl_ T 44. ~ aGe continued to consult with DaJ as the CTC Interrogation Program and the use of BITs expanded beyond the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. This resulted in the production of an undated and unsigned document entitled, "Legal Principles Applicable to CIA Detention and Interrogation of Captured Al-Qa'ida Personnel."27 According to OGC, this analysis waS fully coordinated with and drafted in substantial part by OLC. In addition to'reaffirming the previous conclusions regarding the torture statute, . the analysis concludes that the federal War Crimes statute, 18 U.S.c. 2441, does not apply to'Al-Qa'ida because members of that group are not entitled to prisoner of war statUs. The analysis adds that "the [Torture} Convention permits the use of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment} in exigent circumstances, such as a national emergency or war." It also states that the interrogation of Al--Qa'ida members does not violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because those provisions do not apply extratenitorially, nor does it violate the Eighth Amendment because it only applies to persons upon whom criminal sanctions have been imposed, Finally, the analysis states that a wide range of EITs and other techniques would not constitute conduct of the type that would be prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments even were they to be applicable: The use of the following techniques and of comparable, approved techiliques does not violate any Federal stattrte or other law, where the CIA interrogators do not specifically intend to cause the detainee to undergo severe physical or mental pain or suffering (Le., they act with the good faith belief that their conduct will not cause such pain or suffering): isolation, reduced caloric intake (so long as the amount is calculated to maintain the general health of the detainees), deprivation of reading material, loud music or white the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant. Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priQri reason to believe that applyJng the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which It was used by the psychologist/i.nterrogators was either ellicadous or medically safe. ~ ..J "1 "" ,.....; "'-'-' "j ~ ~ ~ ., 27 Captured Al-Qa'ida PersonneL" attached to ~ "Legal Principles Applicable to CIA Detention and Interrogation of 16 June 2003), I I ........ ~-- -- , -- _.------ . TOP noise (at a decibel level calculated to avoid damage to the detainees' hearing), the attention grasp, walling, the facial hold, the facial slap (insult slap), the abdominal slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, the use of diapers, the use of harmless insects, and the water board. According to OGC, this analysis embodies DoJ agreement that the reasoning of the classified 1 August 2002 OLC opinion extends beyond the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and the conditions that were specified in that opinion. NOTICE TO AND CONSULTATION WITH ExECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL OFFICIALS . 45.~) At the same time that OLC was reviewing the legality of EITs in the summer of 2002, the Agency was consulting ,with NSC policy staff and senior Administration officials. The DCI briefed appropriate senior national security and legal officials on the proposed EITs. In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. 46. ~ In early 2003, CIA officials, at the urging of the General Counsel, continued to inform senior Administration officials and the leadership of the Congressional Oversight Committees of the then-current status of the CTC Program. The Agency specifically wanted to ensure that these officials and the Committees continued to be aware of and approve CIA's actions. The General Counsel recalls that he spoke and met with White House Counsel and others at the NSC, as well as Dol's Criminal Division and Office of Legal Counsel beginning in December 2002 and briefed them all. the scope and breadth of the CTC's Detention and Interrogation Program. 47. ~ Representatives of the DO, in the presence of the Director of Congressional Affairs and the General Counsel, continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees the use of EITs and detentions in February on and March 2003. The General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program. 48. ~ On 29 }tily 2003, the DCI and the General Counsel provided a detailed briefing to selected NSC Principals on ·OA's detention and interrogation efforts involving "high value detainees," to include tbe expanded use of EITS.28 Accordfug to a Memorandum for the Record prepared by the General Counsel following that meeting, the Attorney General confirmed that DoJ approved of the expanded use of various Errs, including multiple applications of the waterboard.29 The General Counsel said he believes everyone in attendance was aware of exactly what CIA was doing with respect to detention and interrogation, and approved of the effort. According to aGC, the senior officials were again briefed regarding the CTCProgram on 16 September 2003, and the Intelligence Committee leadership was briefed again in September 2003. Again, according to OGC, none of those involved in these briefings expressed any reservations about the program. GUIDANCE ON CAPIURE, DETENTION, AND INTERROGATION 49. ~ Guidance and training are fundamental to the success and integrity of any endeavor as operationally, politically, and legally complex as the Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program. Soon after 9/11, the DDO issued .'dance on the standards for the ca ture of terra . t tar ets. 50. ~ The DCI, in January 2003 approved formal "Guidelines on Confinement Conditions for CIA Detainees" (Appendix D). and "Guidelines on Interrogations Conducted (,:>'ppl':,dix El, \\'hi, h .He di~,:u""ed j'd,·,,' Pnor to the Del Guidelines, Headquartt'rs provided guidance ,'> inicrrnal briefings and electronic comml1niciltio~. to include cable~ from CIA Headquarters, to the field, 51. ~ fn N(lv,~mber 2002, eTC initiated IT<:> eTC Program. Background elllLl Dd"inees r ~I ~/ - I I - ------_.-,-------- Guidance Prior to DCI Guidelines the Agenc was roviding legal and operational that contained Headquarters! briefings and cables guidance and discussed the torture statute and fue Dol legal opinion. eTC had aJs.oestabIished a recedent of detailed cables between and Headquarters regarding the interrogation and debriefing of detainees. The written guidance did not address the four standard interrogation techniques that:, according to erC/Legal, the Agency had identified as early as November 2002. 43 Agency personnel were authorized to employ standard interrogation techniques on a detainee without Headquarters' prior approval. The guidance did not specifically 43~The four standard interrogation techniques were: (1) sleep deprivation not to ,.,. exceed 72 hours, (2) continual use of tight Or darkness in a cell, (3) loud musk, and (4) white noise (background hum). TOP address the use of props to imply a physical threat to a detainee, nor did it specifically address the issue of whether or not Agency officers could improvise with any.other techniques. No formal mechanisms were in place to ensure that personnel going to the field were briefed on the existing legal and policy guidance. Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques 90. ~ This Review heard allegations of the use , \ I \ I !I I i i of utl.authorized techniques The most significant, the handgun and power drill incident, discussed below, is the subject of a separate OIG investigation. In addition, individuals interviewed during the Review identified.other techniques that caused concern because DoJ had not specifically approved them. These included the making of threats, bloWing cigar smoke, employing certain stress positions, the use of a stiff brush on a detainee, and stepping .on a detainee's ankle shackles. For all of the instances, the allegatiOns were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination regarding the facts. Thus, although these allegations are illustrative of the nature of the concerns held by individuals associated with the CTC Program and the need for dear guidance, they did not warrant separate investigations or administrative action. Handgun and Power Drill 91. ~ interrogation team members, whose purpose'it was to in~l-Nashiriand debrief Abu Zubaydah, initi.ally s t a f f e d _ The interrogation team continued EITs on AI-Nashiri for two weeks in December 2002_ they assessed him to be "com liant" Subse uentl , CTC officers at ent" Headquarters enior operations officer (the debriefer) to debrief and assess Al-Nashiri. 92. I Withholding information,. at which point_reinstated. hooding, and handcuffing. Sometime between . ~The debriefer assessed AI-Nashiri as T "the 28 pecember 2002 and 1 January 2003, the debriefer used an l.Ul1oaded semi-automatic handgun as a prop to frighten Al-Nashiri into disclosing information.44 After discussing this plan debriefer entered the cell where AI-Nashiri sat shackled and racked the handgun once or twice close to Al-Nashiri's head. 45 On what was probably the s ~ e debriefer used a power drill to frighten Al-Nashiri. Wi~consent, the debriefer entered the detainee's cell and revved the drill while the detainee stood naked and hooded. The debriefer did not touch Al-Nasrnri with the power drill. wi4 93. ~ TI1~md debriefer did not request authorization or report the use of these unauthOlized techniques to ~s. However, in January 2003, newly arrived TDY officers ~ho had learned of these incidents reported them to Headquarters. GIG investigated and referred its findings to the Criminal Division of Do}. On 11 September 2003, Do] declined to prosecute and turned these matters over to CIA for disposition. These incidents are the subject of a separate GIG Report of Investigation. 46 Threats 94. ~ During another incident the same Headquarters debriefer, according to a ho was present, threatened Al-Nashiri by saying 'that if he did not talk, 'We could get OUI mother in here," and, "We can bring your family in here." Th debriefer reportedly wanted Al-Nashiri to infer, for psychologica reasons, that the debriefer might b_ _ intelli ence officer based on his Arabic dialect, and that AlN ashiri was in custod because it was Widely believed in Middle J:!ast circ es . terrogation technique involves 44 ~ This individual was not a trained interrogator and was not authorized to use EITs, 45 (U / /FOUO) Racking is a mechanical procedure used with firearms to chll\11ber a bullet or simulate a bullet being chambered. ' '' 46 ~ Unaul:horized Interrogation Techniques_ 29 October 2003. sexually abusing female relatives in front of the detainee. The debriefer denied threaterung Al-Nashiri through his family. The debriefer also said he did not explain who he was or where he was from when talkin with Ai-Nashiri. The debriefer said he never said he wa . telligence officer but let Al-Nashiri draw his own conclusions. 95. An experienced Agency interrogator reported that the . terrogators threatened Khalid Sha kh Muhamni.ad According to this interrogator, the interrogators said to Khalid Shaykh Muhammad that if anything else happens in the United States, "We're going to kill your children." Accordfug to the interro ator, one of the . terra ators sai provided tc? him of the threat indicate that the law had been violated. Smoke Agenc at, in December 2002, he and another smoked cigars and blew'smoke in Al-Nashiri's face during an intelTogation. The interrogator claimed they did this to "cover the stench" in the room and to help keep the interrogators alert late at night. This interrogator said he would not do this again based on "perceived criticism." Another Agency interrogator admitted that he also smoked cigars during two sessions with Al-Nashiri to mask the stench in the room. He claimed he did not deliberately force smoke into Al-Nashiri's face. Stress Positions 97. ~ OIG received reports that interrogation team me~be~otentiany injurious stress positions on Al-Nashiri. Al-Nashiri was required to kneel on the floor and lean back. On at least one occasion, an Agency officer reportedly pushed Al-Nashiri backward while he was in this streS!i!lP0SitiOn. On another occasion said he had to intercede afte xpressed concern that Al-Nashiri's a.rms mig t be dislocated from his shoulders. _explained that, at the time, the interrogators were attempting to put Al-Nashiri in a standing stress position. Al-Nashiri was reportedly lifted off the floor by his arms while his arms were.bound behind his back with a belt. Stiff Brush and Shackles 98. . terrogator reported that he witnessed 0 er techniques used on -Nashiri that the .interrogator knew were not specifically approved by DoJ. These induded the use of a stiff brush that was intended to induce pain on Al-Nashiri and standing on Al-Nashiri's shackles, which resulted in cuts and bruises. When questioned, an interrogator who was at acknowledged that they used a stiff brush to bathe Al-Nashiri. He described the brush as the kind of brush one uses in a bath to remove stubborn dirt. A CTC manager who had heard of the incident attributed the abrasions on AI-Nashiri's ankles to an Agency officer accidentally stepping on AI-NashirYs shackles while repositioning him into a stress position. Waterboard Technique 99. ~ The Review determined that the interrogators used the waterboard on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad in a marmer inconsistent with the SERE application of the waterboard and the description of the waterboard in the DoJ OLC opinion, in that the teclmique was used on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad a large number of times. According to the General Counsel, the Attorney .n_ _•••_ ' ._ •• - ----0-- . General acknowledged he is fully aware of the repetitive use of the waterboard and that CIA is well within the scope of the DoJ opinion and the authority given to CIA by that opinion. The Attorney General was infonned the waterboard had been used 119 times on a single inclivid ual. ) Cables indicate that Agency ------------------- ---- 48 ~-) 1"1." "'L(-.. o~,n'nn ;,It·.: I "'ue-," ',",,",\"" ~,""" "\0" kI", l '·'.-'d.' " ' , ", ,,1."(\ "rl""~~ Ito;::\,.; I , .. l i-'>' o'~;_\''_·._',l"C;~. informed usth"H it is likelv thal ~his focadure}\\...,,\erbo.ud ;':auld l'IOll,\S\ more llull 20 ff;;D!..ites Hcal~QJ'." in an T I ~'''--'. T I I I I • I I I I I I I , , I I - ":.. .. ---- TOr-s, .- TO TOI TO 1 53 paragraphs 64-65 ~ The first session of the iJ";.lfiiogalion camsi' began in No':eml"'~'r 2(,(12. / Set' 10_ ---~ ----_._-_. - - - - - _.._---.. __ .__ .. _- TO 54 TO T TO I ~ IN l' ] j 'I': ~ ~T__'::_:O_~_T _ j .. : I 1 '7Sili!?-~':'~~=~",:>" .., _ ·;;'-"",,-..'1 1l I I T ,, r,' TO 1k • i I I T .l 1 >- TO Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques 164. was but one event in the ear y man s 0 Agency activity in that involved the use of interrogation techniques that. DoJ and Headquarters had not approved. Agency personnel reported a range of improvised actions that interrogators and debriefers reportedly used at that time to assist in obtaining information from detainees. The extent of these actions is illustrative of the consequences of the lack of clear gtrldance at that time and the Agency's insufficient attention to interrogations in 165. two incidents: and the death 0 a detainee at a mi itaty base in ortheast Afghanistan (discussed further in paragraph 192).. These two cases presented facts that warranted criminal investi ations. Some of the techniques discussed below were used wi and will be further address~ in connection with a Repor In other cases of undOCUD:\.ented or unauthorized techniques, the facts are ambiguous or less serious, not warranting further investigation. Some actions discussed below were taken by employees or contractors no longer associated with the Agency. Agency management has also addresseGi administratively some of the actions. Pressure Points I In July 2002 operations officer, participated with another ti ffi tdil't f d • • ti reportedly used a "pressure oint" techni ue: wijh both of his hands on the detainee's neck, manipulated his fingers to restrict the detainee's carotid artery. 'ee_ ,.". '.:"-' T . 167.~ howas facing the shackled detainee, reportedly watched his eyes to the point that the detainee would nod and start to pass out; then, the shook the detainee to wake him. This process was re ·eated for a total of three applications on the detainee. The acknowledged to OIG that he laid hands on the detainee and ma have made him think he was going to lose consciousness. Th also noted that he years of experience debriefing and interviewing people and tmtil recently had never been instructed how to conduct interrogations. ha. 168. (S;7'tNE) etc management is nOW aware of this reported . incident, the severity ofwhich was disputed. The use of pressure oints is not, and had not been, authorized, and CTC has advised the that such actions are not authorized. Mock Executions 169.~Thede~ri~oyedthe handgun ~d ~A1-Nas~dvised that those actions were predicated on a technique he hadartici ated in ~ h edebriefer s'tated that when he wa between September and October 2002, fire a handgun outside the interrogation room w e e debriefer was interviewin a detainee who was thought to be withholding information. 68 staged the incident, which included screaming and yelling outside the cell by o.ther CIA officers guards. When the guards moved the detainee from the'u1terrogation room, they passed a guard who was dressed as a hooded detainee, lying motionless On the ground, and made tu appear as if he had been shot to death. and" . --:-.- 10 170. ~ The debriefer claimed he did not think he needed to report this incident because ~ad openly discussed this pl~severa~ and after the incident. When the debriefer was late~d believed he needed a non-traditional technique to induce the detainee to cooperate, he told~ewanted to wave a handgun in front of the de~ainee to scare him. The debriefer said he did not believe he was required to notify Headquarters of this technique, citing the earlier, unreported mock executio~ 171. ~Asenioroeonsoffice recounted that around September 2002~eard that the debriefer had staged a.mock execution. ~as not present b~lt unders~ood it went b~t was transparenny"':"ruse and no benefit was denved from it.~bserved that there is a need to be creative as long as it is not considered torture. _tated that if such a proposal were made now, it would involve a great deal of consultation. It would begin wi management and would include erC/Legal, 172. ~ The_ _adrnitted staging a "mock execution" in the first da~as open. According to the the technique was his idea but was not effective because it came across as being staged. It was based on the concept, from SERE school, of showing something that looks real, but is not. The recalled that a particular eTe interrogator later told him about employing a mock exemtion technique. Th~ _ d i d not know when this incident occurred or if it was successful. He viewed !:his technique as ineffective because it was not believable. I T ~~FOur " ~ho were interviewed admitted to h' either participating in t e described staging a mock execution of a detainee. Reportedly, a detainee who witnessed the 'body" in the aftermath of the ruse "sang like a bird." 174. revealed that a roximately four days before his interview with OIG, th stated he had conducted a mock executio . October or November 2002. Reportedly, the 'rearm was discharged outside of the buildJn~ and it was done because the detainee reportedly possessed critical threat informatio~stated that he told the not to d ~ e stated that he has not heard of a similar act occurring ~incethen. . . Use of Smoke revealed that cigarette smoke was once used as an interrogation technique in ~ e d l y , the request of at _ _an interrogator, the officer, who does not smoke, blew the smoke from a thin cigarette/cigar in the detainee's face for about five minutes. The detainee started talking so the smoke ceased. heard that a different officer had used smoke as an interrogation techni~ questioned numerous persopnel who had worke~bout the use of smoke as a technique. None reported any knowledge of the use of smoke as an interrogation technique. ..J":-'. t--'-·· TO 'th information,70 denied ever physically abusing detainees or knowing anyone who has. Use of Cold detainee was being interrogate Prior to proceeding with any of the~ethods, officer respol18iblefoJ; the detainee_requesting Headquarters authority to employ a prescribed interrogation plan over a twO-week period. The plan included the following: , Physical Comfort Level Deprivation: With use Qf a wmdow air conditioner and a judicious proVision/ deprivation of warm . c!othing/bl~ ~:> .I ~j I ~ ~ ~ T T .,~ ANALYI1CAL SUPPORT TO II'.rr£RROGA'I'fO:-IS 204, ~ Directur"te of Tntelligence ana!\'.sts assigned to eTC provide an"lytiC:l! sliprort to interrogation te.ll11$ in the field, Analysts are responsible for de\'elopi.n~ requirement'; for the questionin of detainees as well as conduchn debrieiin: in some cases. Analysts, however, donal participate in the application of interrogation teclmiques. TOP T 205. ~ According to a number of those interviewed for this Review, the Agency's intelligence on Al-Qa1da was limited prior to the initiation of the ere futerrogation Program. The Agency lacke.d adequate linguists or subject matter experts and had very little hard kn?wledge of what particular Al-Qa1da leaders-who later became detainees-knew. This lack of knowledge led analysts to speculate about what a detainee "should know," vice information the anal st could ob ectivel demonstrate the detainee did know. a etainee inot respon to a question posed to him, the assumption at Headquarters was that the detahtee was holding back and knew more; consequently, Headquarters recommended resumption of BITs.. T evidenced in the final waterboilrd seSSlOn of Abu Zuba\"Ciah. ~ to a senior eTC officer, the interrogation tea'm. • ~onside;red Abu ZubLlydah to be comp\iont and wanted to terminate ElTs . elieved Abu Zubav.OahCQntinued to withhold infol'Illatlon I c.:-, I 1 generated substantial pressure from Headquarters to ·continue use of tl:1e BITs. According to this senior officer, the decision to resume use of the waterboard on Abu Zuba dah was made b senior officers of the DO to assess Abu Zubaydah's compliance and witnessed the final waterboard session, afterwh..i.ch, they reported back to Headquarters that the EITa were no longer needed on Abu Zubaydah. EfFECTIVENESS 211. ~ The detention of terrorists has prevented them from engaging in further terrorist activity, and t1}.eir interrogation has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists, warned of terrorists plots planned for the United States and around the world, and supported articles frequently used in the fuushed intelligence publications for senior policymakersand war fighters. In this regard, there is no doubt that the Program has been effective. Measuring the effectiveness of EITs, however, is a more subjective process and not without some concern. 212. t rr rists fil ~ When the Agency began capturing t' d . . d th f th ff rt t b . . . ttin - , -l "I T TO e capture 0 terronsts w 0 a access to mu more significant, actionable information, the measure of success of the Program increasingly became the intelligence obtained from the .detainees. 1 213. ~ QUantitatively, the DO has significantly increased the number of counterterrorism intelligence reports with the inclusion of information from detainees in its custody. BehVeen 9/11 and the end of April 2003, the Agency produced over 3,000 intelligence reports from detainees. Most of the reports came from intelli ence provided by the high value detainees at 214. ere frequently uses the information from one detainee, as well as other sources, to vet the information of another detainee. Althol.}-gh lower-level detainees provide less information than the high value detainees, information from these detainees has, on many occasioIlB, supplied the . information needed to obe the hi . value detainees further. the triangulation· of intelligence provides a fuller knowledge of Al-Qa'ida activities than would be possible from a single detainee. For example, Mustafa Ahmad Adam al-Hawsawi, the Al-Qa'ida financier who was captured with Khalid Shaykh Muhammad ovided the Agency's first intelligence pertaining to another Hawsawi's participant in the 9/11 terrorist plot. role from information to obtain additional details abou Khalid Sha kh Muhammad 215. Detainees have provided information on Al-Qa'ida and other terrorist gro~ note includes; the modus operandi of Al-Qa'idaF _ _ rism who are ~pable of mounting attacks in the I I I 86 216. ~ De~e inform.ationhas assisted in the identi£kation of terrorists. For example, information from Abu Zubaydah helped lead to the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed-operatives who had plans to detonate a uranium-topped dirty bomb in either Washington, II.C., or New. York City. Riduan ;'Hambali" Isomuddin provided inforJ:flation·that led to the arrest of previously unknown members of an Al-Qa'ida cell in Karachi. They were designated as pilots for an aircraft attack . inside the United States. Many other detainees, including lower-level detainees such as Zubayr and Majid Khan, have provided leads to other terrorists, but probably the most prolific has been Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. He provided informaliqn that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including SayfulIah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easU and was tasked to research attacks Khalid Shaykh Muhammad's information also led to the investigation and prosecu~ Faris, the truck driver arrested in early' 2003 in Ohio. _ _ '<:." 'I Tel? SJiX:RRI: blow up several gas stations to create panic and havoc; hijack and fly ail airplane U.S. into the tallest building in California in a west coast version of the World Trade Center attacki cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York in an effort to make them colla se; This Review did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent. Agency senior managers believe that lives have been saved as a result of the capture and interrogation of terrorists who . were planning attacks, in particular Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Hambali, and Al-Nashirl. 218.. detainees as one of the most Un intelligence. viewed analysts' knowledge of the terrorist target as having much more depth as a result of information from detainees and estimated that detainee reporting is used in all counterterrorism articles roduced for the most senior olic akers. I I said he believes the use of EITshas proven to be extremely valuable in obtaining enormous amounts of critical threat information fromdetainees who had otherwise believed they were safe from any harm in the hands of Americans. 220. ~ Inasmuch as Errs have been used only since August 2002, and they have not all been used with every high value detainee, there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness. 1his Review identified concerns about the use of the waterboard, specifically whether the risks of its use were justified by the results, whether it has been urmecessarily used in some instances, and whether the fact that itis being applied in a manner different from its use in SERE training brings into question the continued applicability of the Dol opinion to its use. Alth,ough the waterboard is the most intrusive of the EITs, the fact that precautions havebeen taken to provide on-site medical oversight in the use of all EITs is evidence that their use poses risks. 221. ~ Determining the effectiveness of each BIT is important in facilitating Agency management's decision as to which techniques should be used and for how long. Measuring the overall effectiveness of BITs is challenging for a number of reasons including: (1) the Agency carmot determine wiih:any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee_ actually possesses; (2) each -detaineehaa different fears of and tolerance for EITs; (3) the application of the same EITs by different interrogators may have TO 222. ~ The waterboard has been used on three detainees: Abu Zuba dah, Al-Nashiri, and Khalid Sha kh Muhammad. 223. Prior to the us~ of EITs, Abu Zubaydah provided. information fo . telligence reports. Interrogators applied the waterboard to Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times during. August 2002. During the period between the end of the use of the waterboard and 30 April 2003, he provided information for approximatel_additional reports. It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard however, Abu Zubaydah has ap eared to be cooperative ~ With respect to Al-Nashiri_ reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after w :t e psychologist/ interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was com Iiant. However, after bein mov AI-Nashiri was thought to be withholding information. Al-Nasltiri subsequently received additional EITs, . but not the waterboard. The Agency then . determined Al-Nashiri to be "compliant." Because of the litany of 90 techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively sh6rt period of time, it is difficult to ideJ;ttify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information. However, following the useofEITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs, 225, ~ On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete. As a means of less active resistance, at the beginning of their interrogation, detainees routinely provide information that they know is already known. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad received 183 a Jications of the waterboard in March 2003 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THEDETENITON AND INTERR0 GAITON PROGRAM 226. ~ The EITs used by the Agency under the eTe Program are inconsistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human' rights. 'This divergence has been a cause of concern to some Agency personnel involved with the Program. ' Policy Considerations 227. (U //FOUO) Throughout its history, the United States has been an international proponent of human rights and has voiced opposition to torture and mistreatment of prisoners by foreign countries. This position is based upon fundamental principles that are deeply embedded in the American legal structure and jUrisprudence. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for . . example, require due process of law, while the Eighth Amendment bars "cruel and unusual punishments." 228. (U //FOUO) The President advised the Senate when submitting the Torture Convention for ratification that the United States would construe the requirement of Article 16 of the Convention to "undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture" as "roughly equivalent to"· and "coextensive with the ConstitutiOnal guarantees against cruel, Unusual, and inhumane treatment-"81 To this end, the United States submitted a reservation to the Torture Convention stating that the United States considers itselfbound by Article 16 "only insofar as the term 'cruel, inhum'an or degrading treatment or punishm~t'means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or. punishment prohibited by the 5th, 8th and/or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the Urcited States." Although the Torture CQnvention expressly provides that no exceptional circurnstanceswhatsoever; including war or any other public emergency, and no order from a superior officer, justifies torture, no similar provision was included regarding acts of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." .,;. (U I IPOUO) See Message from the President of the United Stales Transmitting the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, lnhurnan or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Sen. Treaty Doc. 100-20, 100"'Cong., 2d Sess., at 15, May 23, 1988; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Executive Report 101-,30, August 30, 1990, at 25, 29, quoting summary and analysis SUbmitted by President Ronald Reagan, as revised by President George H.W. Bush. 81 T " " .. "_.·1 TO 229. (U / /FOUO) Annual U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices have_repeatedly condemned harsh-interrogation techniques utilized by foreign governments. For example, the 2002 Report, issued in-March 2003, stated: [The United Statesl have been given greater opportunily to make good on our co~tment to uphold standards of human dignity and liberty. . .. [Nlo country is exempt from scrutiny, and all countries benefit from constant striving to identify their weaknesses and improve their performance .... [Tlhe Reports serve as a gauge for our international human rights efforts, pointing to areas of progress and drawing our attention to new and continuing challenges. In a worldmarching toward q,ernoeracy and respect for human rights, the United States is a leader, a partner and a contributor. We have taken this responsibility with a deep and abiding belief that human rights are universal. They are not grounded. exclusively in American or western values. But their protection worldwide serves a core U.S. national interest. The State Department Report identified objectionable practices in a variety of countries including, for example, patterns of abuse of prisoners in Saudi Arabia by such means as "suspension from bars by handcuffs, and tJ:ueats against family members, ... (being) forced constantly to lie on hard floors [and] deprived of sleep .... " Other reports have criticized hooding and stripping prisoners naked. 230. (U/ I FOUO) .In June 2003, President Bush issued a statement in observance of "United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture:" The statement said in part: The United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right .... Yet torture continueS to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit .... Notorious human rights abusers ... have sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors .... The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and'prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment .... Concerns Over Participation in the ere Program . 231; ~ During the course of this Review, a number of Agency officers expressed Unsolicited concern about the possibility of . recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC Program. A number of officers expressed concern that a human ue them for activities :':" lA' Additionally, they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them if this occurred. 232. ~ One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency ()fftcers will wind up on some "wanted list" to ap~r before the World Court for war crimes stemming from activities. Another said, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this ... [but] it has to be done." He expressed concern that the CTC Program will be exposed in the news media and cited particular concern about the possibility of being named in a leak. I I ENDGA.ll-fE T 237. ~ The number of detainees in CiA custody is relatively small by compilrison witJ1 those in U.s. military custody. Nevertheless, the Agency. like the military. has an interestin the disposition of detainees and particular interest in those who. if not kept in isolation, would likely divulge information about the circumstances of their detention. T 245. I~ Pnll(~Yln.lkO::'r . . 11,\\1:' '2:1\l';\ ~."ln"ldt'r.:,t'll!l to prosect! lion ,1~ ,1 \'j;lb It, rn.l1lfl<.. .. ! 1 ! I ..,_.,.. _~.j "'J I ~---- -- -------- ._-- - - - - Appendix C T D~~J.JeparOnont August I, 2002 of Justice Office of Legal Counsel MemnrandWll for John Riizo Acting Geneml Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency JlllerrQgiIJion O[al Qaition against tor1llre found at Seotion 2340A of title 18 of the Unile!! States Code. You have asked for this advice in the coutse ofconducting interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. As we understand it, Zubaydah is one of the highest ranking members of the ~I Qaeda terrorlst organization, with which the Uniled States is currently cngaged in an international armed conflict fOllowing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September It, 2001. This letter men1oria!i= ourprevions oratadvice, .given on lull' 24, 2002 and July 26, 2002, that the propo.ed conduct would not ""'late this prohibition. L Our a,!viel! is bas¢ upeiJ, the fuljQwing faell!. whi.eb. you have provldedto us. We also lI11detlllimd that you do not have an)' fuels [0 your possesmon oomr.ary to the facts ouilinedh.ere, and this opinion is umi!ed to these facts. If thel:e facts were to cbango. this advice would roOl necessarily apply. Zubaydeh is cuO'OI1tly being held by lbe United States. The illterrogation team is certain that he has additlonal information that he refuses to divulge. Specifically, he is withliolding infurmatlon regarding terrorist IlelWQrks inthe United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct at1<111 will be cOllStruetcd. The individualls placed widl his nei:ls fO'illwlllrtheWalJ: 1'bellltmugattlr pnUs'!be intli"iWal f'o1:mrd-and-then 'ltri;;.lcly1ltld firmly J?UBl>.es the individual into the wall. It is tlle individual's shoulder blades that rut the wall. DnriogthisrootioD., the head and neek are supported with lL rolled hood or towel that provides a c-coilar effect to hell' prevent whiplash. To further reduce tl,e probability ofinj\llJ, the in.dividual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. You Mve orclly infor.med \Ii; that the false wall is in pan construet.ed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shook or sUtpr!se in the individual.. In part, the idea is 10 cteate a'sound thaI wULmake the impact seem fur worse than it is and that will be tar WOllie than aily injury.that migJ,t result from the action. The facial hold is used to hold the bead Ijnm~bile. One open .palin is·:p~ed. Oll,either side ofllle indlvidwU's face. 1\Ie fil\gertips are kept well away from tha indivldpal's eyes. With tlie facial slap or insuU slap, the intetroglltor'slaps!be individual's face ".th fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the atea directly betweetl1lJe tip ofthe individual's clun and the bottom oflbe corresponding eadobe. The interrogator invades the indh~duar. personal space. The goal of the tilcial slap is nolto inllict physical pain that is severe or lastiog. tnstead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation. Crantped oonfinemen\ involves the p1aeeroent ofthe individual in a confined space, the dimOllsions of which restrict the individual'. movement. The confined space is usuallydsrl<. TO~RET 2 ro~i® The dmati~ri ofconfioement varies basm upon the stteoftlle .outliner. for U,e [alger cGI1fu,ed space, the individual can stand up or Sit down; the smaller space is large onnugp. for tile subject to· sit doWll. Coufiiiement in the luger space can last UP. t,re: . fhe·effeai:<:>fslleh-tleep-depri-..>ian will gene<>infdtliled \Is mat your r..eareb bas revealed that, in rare instances, Sallie individuals who arealreadyp~edisl'ased io peyclwlagiCal problems may experience abnormal reactions to sleep deprivation. Eve" in those cases', however, reactions abate afler 1he ifldividuaI is permitted lo·sl~p. Moreover, personnel with medical training are aVailable to and will intervene in !heunlil<:tbo3l:<> his lun~. Durljjg t1iose 20 ld 40 seconds, is confiJino.usly applied from a height of twelve to twCllty-fllut m:aheii, Aftet fuls.perlod. the eroth i$ Hfted. ana the mdiVidua! [s allowed to breathe unimpeded fur tI,rce or fourfu)l hreaths. \'he sepsationof drowning is immediately ~by the removal cf the doth. The-procedure mal' then· oe· repeared. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small walering Cili1 With a 5J!OUl. You have ol'llily informed us th.at tbis procedure tciggw l1ll automatic physiological sensation of drowning that (he individual cannot control even: though he mey be aWare that he is in face not drowning. You have abo orally informed US that it is likely that this procedure wouia not last l1l.ore than 20 minutes in anyone application. waner We also understand that a medical expert with SERE experience will be present throughout this phase and thallbe procediJreS Will b4 stopped if deemed medieally n~essary to prevent severe mental or physical bann to Zubaydah. Al;ulentioned above, ZubaYdah suffered an injury during l1.is ceptltte. You have informed us that steps will be taken to ensure that tbis injury is not in any way exacerbated by the use of these methods and l!Ja1 edequete medical attenlioll. Will· be g!ve,n 10 ellStll"! that it will heal propWy.. lI. Tn lbis part, We teviewtlleeolltext withln Whi<;h these proceaures wl1l be applied. You have infurmed us that yilu have taken various steps til B.\CeI:tBirl what effeCt, if any, these techniques wourd have on ZUbaydah's mental health. These $&De teclini'i\l~, wilh tIle·exception of the insect in the cramped confined spece, ha"" been ilsed and continue to oe used on some members of our milltary personnel during their SERE training. BCGaWle oethe USe of these procedures in training Cur own military personnel to resist interrogatioll.'l, ytllj h"'" ecn.."Il!ted with various individuals who.have extensive·experience in the useot'these techniques. You have done so in order to ensure that no prolongt!d lllhD.taJ h•.nn would resulr from tba use ofthese proposed·procedures. Through yOUl' consultation With various individuals responsible for sucll nalning, you have learned thaI tllese rechniqnes have be C< able to finish lhe progrom wifuout any indication of subsequent me"tal health effeets. , iraP . '6 '. '. , ).1l1Ilg se ten'years, inB"fllr as is lion"'Orlli,,'ini111iWii' .t~ tll)lipl,6ted theprcgcam:suffe;rod $Y adverse 1l1ental health. effetts. Ho'ilfuIJlled \">ufuat there was elle perso'! wliQ iil.a 1lQt ~omplete tb.e training. '!bat person experienced' an adverse mentlllhelilth l<&ooll that lasted. ouly two hOUTS•. After these two ho=, the individual's symptoms s~ontaneolml" dissipated without requiring treatment or COUnSeling and no other symptoms Were evet lO1'otted by tins indl\'idual. According to the information. you bJlve provided to us, to.is aSsessment ofthe use ofthese procedures includes the USe of the waterboard, he ",Yare, . om the ~ :om;ch··yau.snppliM to Us. has experience \'I!ththe use a a'o ese proc ures lila course of conduct, wi the'6!<'ceptlOn of the insect ill the conflllement box and the Wlllllrbaard. This memorandum confirms that ~le use of these procedures has not resultedi" any reported inBt=s ofprolonged menta! h.arm, and 'n es of immediate and temporary adverse psy<:hologicel responses to the training. orted that a small mllwrity ofstudeots have had tempOrary adverse psycho glCii reactions during training. Of Iii 26,829 swdenls trained from 1992 tItrolll!h 2001 in dte Air Force SERE training, 4.3 percenr offuose st1Ulellts hall contact with pSychology services. GrillO,e 4.3 percerit, only 3.2 percellt we,epullecl (tom t\!e1J.rogJ:aDl...fur psychological reasoos. Thus, out ofthe students trained'overall, ';rll~ 0~l4 frQl:il the 0" ". u!led progmm for psychological reasonS. Furtbeanore, l I 1 f M u : , .. eated ihat surveys of students having cortlpleJ;ed thiS'. \rllining are uot done,lle~ ova been made. While thole was 000 Inspector General complalnt. it WlllI not due 1<1 psj!cholOgleal c=ms. Moreover, he was aware of only one letter inqWring about the I<>ng~leml impaet ofthese t<>chniques from an iadividual tra(ned ro~ 5 TO~T over twenty ~ouud that it was impossible to attribute this Indh~d~al's symptoms to his training. ~ncluded that if there are any tong-term psychoJogleal effects of the United States Alr Force lmilling using the procedures outlined above they "ara certainlY, minimal. u With resp-ect to the waterboatd, yOIl have also orall>' informed us thal the Nilvy continuos to use it in train.ing. You have infonned us that yOUr on-site pSYchologiSEs, who bav. extensive oxperie= with the use of the \li1lteeooard in Navy It"ining, have not eli.C6un1.ered any siguifJcan.t long-term iilenml healdl consequences from its ........ Your on·silel'syc!lblogists have a1.0 indicated 'that !PRA has likewise Dol repGrted'Bl1Y 5iglitfioant Iong4erla mental health consequences from dIe ljSe oftile vI),!erboard. YOW have infulll1ed US that Qtllet'Services ceased use of d,e waterbnard b<>tor,msKs an4 s!l.olt4ennmemory tests. Although scme illdi.viduals lllay experieooe hallucinations, according to 1he literature you sncve,yed, those who nxperlence such psycholic synlptoms hav~ allnost a1WS}'shad such e]lisodes prior to the sleep deprlv..tion. You bave indicated tho studies oflengfuy sfeep deprivation shOwed. no p,yclro,is, loosening oftl1ougb.ts, flattening afOlilQtiops, delusions; or pareno'id idl\as., In o~e case, even after ele"en d2.ys of deprivation, 00 ll'y.chosis o"petma"l~nt brain dl result of these lechniq\les. Moreover, io consulting with a number ofmenllll healtb experts, you bave learned that the effect of any ofthese procedur~s will be dependant on the individual's personal history, cuJ.tural history and psyct1ologk"ll""dMOIM. To that end, you have informed us that you have . TO~ET 6 TO~R£T completed a psychological assessment of ZUbadyab. This assessmonr is based on interviews with Zubaydah, observations ofhim, and informatioa collected from od\ersources such as Intelligence and press reports. Our underslanding orZubaydah's psychological profile, which Vie set forth below, is based on that assessment. According to tlds assessment, Zubayd:1h, ihous!tonly 31, rose C[uickly from very low levet mujahedin to third or fourth man io al Q~ He has served as USiiIDa Birl La-den's semor lieutenant. In that capacity, be bas I113llllj\ed a network oftrainl1J1l tamps.H. has been instnlmental in the tnlIning ofooeratives· for al aYEW1v!sf:led indM:dualsin pilson ani! betjil:f capture, io.terrogati,m, and !el!ist:mce to such interrogation: Addifioruilty, he hils spoke" with AyrtW1 alZawabiri, and yon believe it Is likely dial the tWo hiS d¢ceptlon he has, among other things. PI1tVOOted th~ J.ocatlon of ai Q>eda. safeb.eU8tll and·.~ acquired' a United Na-rt<\Ucci emoticWl! rc1liliotloc, stlO6t &aWl', .biUty to orll'llUze and manage people, keen obsccvatiOD skills, ll,~idadaptahilily (can anticipate ona .dept ooder duress and wiU, minimal re.Ollrces), capacity to ·as.... and eor.ploit the Deeds ofolhets,anliabllL:y to llrljust goals to emerging oPPOI11ll1ities. You anticipate that he win draw upon his vast knowledge of interrogation techniques to . cope with tlte interrogation. Your assessment indicates th$t Zubaydah may be willing 10 die 10 protect rhe most important ittformatioD that he bolds. Nonetheless, you are of the view that his belief that Islam will ultimately dominate Ule world and that this victory is inevitable may provide the chance thal Zubaydah will give. iflfurmottion and rationalize it solely as'a temporary T~RET 8 TO~T sOlbaok. Additionalil', l'oU believe he may be willing to disclose some infonnatioll, pat'lieuI,rly information he deell;'lo not be critical, but which may ultimately be useful to us when pieced logether \Vim omer intelligence infonnelion you have gained. m . . Section 2340A mOk.. it a crintinaU,ffOjlSe tbr aqy pelSon "ours ide of the Uillted 'States [toJ eql11mit(j or attemptO to' ooromit tol1ure." Section 2340(1) dermes tortllTe as: an aetcomrnitted by'a person acting under ti,e color onaw spedfiaally intended to iuflid severe pl,yslcal or mental pain or sIlfflttlng (other than pain or su!ferin§ incidental to la"oful sanctions) upon another person. within his custody of physical conrro!. 18 U.S,C. § 2340(1). As we01ltlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under ~tiOI> 2340A, a violation of2340ArequKesa:showiitg that: (1) tiie toiture occurred outside the United States; (2) tile defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant sp.edfically intended to inflict Severe pain or suffeti11g; and (5) that the a<:e Agency, from Jay S. Byb.... Assl$tant Attorney General, Office of Legal Coursel, Re: Sta17dard$ ofConduct fa,· [Ilterrogation under 18 §§ :zJ4Q-2346A at 3 (Augl>SII, 2002) CSeC'tlen 2340A Memorandum"). You have asked us to assume that ZUbayadah is being held outside the United Sl,tes, Zuba.yadah is within U.S. castody, and the intecrogatots are acting uoder tho oolor of law. AI issue is whether the last two e!emeots would be met bl' U,e use of me propose='U5e th~ size resjtlets mD'lerneot, they are notso small as to require the individual ttl COl11~ IUs body to sit ~tU&ll box) or stand (luge box). YOll have also otally informed us that despite his wound. Zubaydsll remains quite flexible, whieb would.substantially reduce any paiJl associated with beiflg plated in the box. 'We have no infurmation liom the medical exports you have consulted that the limited duration for which the indlvldUal is kept in 'he boxes causes any subsianrl.l ph~~ical pain. As. resUlt, we do not think the use of these boxes can be said to cause pain that is of the inteflSit)' assodated with serious plll'sical mjuty. The use of one ofthesc boxes with tIleintroduet.iou of an insect does c.ot alt.ef this assessment. As wo understaDJi it, no actually hanufuI insect "ill be placed in the box. Thus, tbough. the introduution ofan insect may produce trepidation ifl ZUhaydah (which we discuss below),ltcertain!y doo' nut ",,-use pbyslcOlpliln. As lilr sleep deprivatiolJ, it is clear that depriving someone of sleop does flot involve so"",e physical pain wilhin the mcan.ing of the statute. While sleep' deprivation may involve same physical discomfort, such as 11", fatigue or tbe discomfort experienced in the difficulty of keeping one's ey'S open, these effects remit after the individual is pe'1l1irted to sleep. Based on Ihe facts you have provided us, we are nn! aware of OIly e,oideuce·that sleep depdVlltion r"""'IIlts in severe physical pain nr suff~ng. As a resnJt, its use does not violate Section 2340A. Even those technlqu'S that involve pltysjcaJ eont""t between the interrogator and the TO~RET 10 TO~RET individual do not result in severe pain. The fueial sLap and waJlir.g contain pl."cautions to ensute that no pain even approoehing this level results. The slap is delivered with fIngers slightly spread, which you have explained (a US is designed (a be less painfullhan a closed·hand slap. The slap is also delivered to Ole fleshy part of the face, funh.. reducing any risk. of physical damage or serious pain. Tbe facial slap does not produce pzinthat is diffictillro endl1Ie. Likewise, walling iJlvolv<:ven though the subject may be well amre that 1", is in fact not drowning. YOll have lnfomled us that this pr whatsoever, does n.ot: in Our view inflict "severe paiD or SUfferiRg.'1 Even if one were to pan;e the sta,tut,e more fu:tely to anempl to treat "suffering" as a distiDct CODcept, tbe warerboard could nat be said to inflict severe suffering. The Walerboard iss!",ply a controlled acute "Fiso&, lacking the connotation nfa protraClCd peliod of time generally given to suffering. Finally, as We discussed above, you have inibrmod us that in determining which procedures to nse and howyau will use them, you have selected tecbniques that will not hann Zubaydah', wound. You hay", also indicated that numerous stops will be taken to enSUre that nODe of these procedures in ally way inurfer"'i with iho l'f'lpet hesling ofZubaydah's wOUlld. You ea."e also inrl1catl:d. lbat, should it appear at any time IhIlt.Zub'9< sove:specific verbai.thrcal of severe physical pain or suffering, To the extent that U,CSC techniques C<1uld be considered a tltreat of Se.Vere ph),ica.! pain or suffering" such a threat would h.ve to be inferred from the acts themselves. Beeause these acti.eus themselves involve no pain, neither tonld be interpreted by a reasonable. person in Znbaydalt's posttion to constitute a threat of severe pain or suffeling. Aeeordiagly, these two techniques are not predicate acts witlun the ·meariing ofSllCtiOn 2340. The facial slap likewise falls outside the set of predicate acts. 11 plaio1y is not a threat of immihent death, under Sectio~ 2340(2)(C), or a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality, under Section 234O(2)(B). Though it may hurt, as discussed above; the effect is one. of smarting or stin~ and surprise or humiliation, but not severe psin. Nor does it alone constitute a Ibreal of severe pain or suffering, ,ulder Section 2340('.l)(A). Like the facial . hold alld the attention grasp, the use of this slap is nol accompanied by a specific verbal threat of furd,er escalating viole.nce. Additionally, you have infonned us rhat in one. use this te<:luuoue . will typically involve at moSI two slaps. Certainly, lhe use of this slap may dislodge any . e,.peetation tha! Zubaydah had thai he would not be touched in a physically aggres:.1ve manner. Nonethe.less, this alteration in his expccwtions couid hardly be ";'nstrued by a reasonable. person in his situation to be tantamount to a threat ofsevete physical pain or suff"ring. At most, tilis technique suggests tbat tbe circumstances ofhis confinement and inteu1Jgarion haYe changed. Therefore, the facial slap is not within tbe statute's exciusive list ofpredicale acts. TO~RET 12 . TO~RET Walling plaiJlly is nol a proCedure calculared 10 disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. While walling involves what might be characlerized as rough handling, il dO¢S not involve the threat of imminenr dealh or, as discussed above, lbe infliclion of severc·physicaJ pain. MOfeover, once again we underSlmld that usc ofihis teclmique wilhot.. be accompAnied by any specific veluallhreat that violence will e<\Sue absent cooperation, Thus, like tbe facial slap, walliug can only constltute a tbreat ofseverep~ieal pain if a reasonable person wo<> believes he wilt receive. NOl\elheks., the char8cter of the action flills so fiIr short of inflicting severe pain or suffering V.'iUlin.the meaning oflite Btstute lhate".n.ifhe inferred d1lll greater aggressiveness was to follow, the type of actions dial could be reasonably be anticipated would .tUl fall below artythiug .ufficientto inflict ,evere phl'sical paio or suffering under the statute, Thus, we cooclude that. this technique falls outside the proseribed predicate acts. .Like '",ailing, stress positions and wall-standing are 001 procedutes calculated to disrupt profOlllldly the senses, nor are they threats of imrttinertt death. Thllse procedures, as discussed above, involve the use ofmu~le fatigue to encourage cooperation. and do not themselves <>Jusutute the infliction of severe physical pain or suffuring. Moreover, <: predicate acts set forth in Section 2340(2). . As with 11,e olher tecbniques discussed so fur, cramped coBf,nemcnl is not a lhreat of imminent <=e effecl in the subject. S Seclion23411A Mernotll11dum lit •• 10-12. We have pre....iously coocluded that this reqUires li,aI the procedure cause subotantial illleif.rence with the individual's cognilive abilities or fundamentally aiter his personalit)'. See id. at 11. Moreover, lhe SUltUte require, thaI sut!! procedures must be calculated to ptoduce this effect. See Id. at 10; 18 U.s.C. § 2340(2)(B). ll With respect 10 the small cc-niin=ent box. you have informed us thai he would spend at most lwo hOlini in !his bux. YQU have informed us thitl your purpose in using these boxes is nOl to iuterfe.e with hi. SClSe& aT I,i. persooatil)', bUI to cause him physicsl tiiscomfort that wi!! OJ'COl1l1\jle him to di.close critical iufoJJllltliau. Morea......, your i..-nposition of time limimtion. on (he use of either ofU,e boxes also indicates til.llbe use ofilies. boxes is Dot designed or calculaled to disrupt profoundly Ihe senses Or personalilY. For tile larger box, in which he can T~REr 1" ., TO~RET both stand and sit, he may be placed in this box fur:upto eighteen hOlli> at a time, while you hE.ve informed us thala. will never '.Pend more th'lh an hour lit time in dlO slDa~ler box..These I1me limits I,imher ensure that no profnunrl dtsruptiOll ef l!l<. sen..< )'6"a.. ·l!effi~so.. tIwa;;.; eronably feel thr.atened with severe physical pain or suffering ifa cstCl:JliUar WllS placed in the box. Further, you have informed us that you are not aware that Zubaydah bas any allergies to insects, and you bave not infprtl1ed US of 80)' olher faclors thet would cause a r....onabl. person in that same.situation !o believe mat ~n unknUWll insect would cause him severe physical pain or death. Thus, we conclude that the placement o[O,e il1S<:c! in the cOnUueolent box with Zuhaydah would not constitute a predicate acr. Sleep deprivation "also clearly does nat involve a. Meat of imminenl death. Although il dlscollifurt, il canuot bl'said 10 constit!'te a threat of severe phyaicaJ pain or suffering from the perspective ofa reasonable person in Zubaydah's position. Nor could sleep deprivati9Bcionstilute a procedure calculatedta dlorupt profoundly ille senses, so long as sloep deprivation (as you bave inJbrmed us is your intent) is used for limit.d periods, before hallucinations or other profound disruptions of the senses would occur. To be sure, sleep deprivatIon may reduce the subject's abilily tn think on his feel Indeed, you indicate thal!h.is is· prod1l~ physical TO~T j4 TOP~T the intended result. His m.ereteduced ability to evade YOUr questions and resist al1$wering does oot, however, rise to the level cfolsrupllon r:equir~d by ~te statute. As we explained above. a disrup\ion within tlle meaning oftllC statur.e isan eKlremO ono, substantially interfering with an individual's cognitive abilities, for example, inducing hallucinations, or driY[ng him Co engage in uncharacl1:ristic self- act roquirement under the statute. Althongh the waterboard constitures a tbreatofimminent dearh; prolonged menIal harm must nonetheless result to violl!1e the statuIory· prohibition ou infliction of severe mentai pain or sufferiflll' See Seetion 23401. Metny, among otl1~ tbings, ilte reliance on the advice of experts. Ste id. at 8. Based OIl the inf-onnation you ha:ve provided us, we believ~ that those carrying out these procedures would not have the specific intent to infIi<:t ,evere physical pain or suffering. The objoetive of lhese techniques is nOl to oatIse severe physico! pain. FirSt, the constant presenr:e of personnel with modical training who Mvethe authority to stop the interrogation should it appear it is medir..ally n.c.essary inner. M we indicated above. a goOd faith·belief can negate this clemenl Accordingly, if an ihdividual conducting !be interrOgation bes a good·nuth beiief that tile apply, separately ortogether, "",uld not \s, a specific Agencry staff employee (thEl "Responsible CIA Officer") is designatEld as responsible for each specific Detention Facility, . (b) that each Responsible etA Officer has been provided with a copy of thElse Guidelii1es and has reviewed and signed the att..ched. _Ac.knowledgment, and. .tel that each ResponsibIe. CIA OJ;ficer and each CLA officer participating . div tainad ursuant to with a suant and has ow e gment attac ereto. . SUbject· to oPerational and seCurity considerations. ·the Responsible CIA Officer spall be present at, or visit, each Detention Facility at intervals appropriate to the circumstances. APPROVED: Date \h.4tI\o!. TO? S Guidelines on conrinement Conditions for~IA Detainees , I, ' , alII the -,Responsible CIA' Officer for the Detention Facility known as • B¥ W¥ signature , below, I acknowledge that X have read and understand' and will oomply, with the 'Guidelines on Confinement conditions for CIA Detainees' of , 2003. ACKNOWLE~ED, Name , Date .' '- AppendixE TOP I .,.,. •• - Ci ._ ._ • • • .~ • • ,- .:...- •.•• ,. These Guidelines complement internal Directorate of Operations guidance relating to the conduct of tbese Guidelines shall control. ,:I.. interrOgations. In the event of any inconsist.ency between existing DO guidance and these Guidelines, the provisions of ' Pe:t:mi. sib1-e J:nt..n:0llat:!.on Teohniques Unless otherwise approved by Head~arters. CIA officers and other personnel acting on beha1.f of CIA may use only Permissible Interrogation Techniques. permissible Interrogation ,Techniques cons:!.st of both (a) Standard Techniques and (b) EDhancedTecbni'ques. ' " , Standa~d TeghniqueS are techniques that do not , incorporate physical or substantial psychological pressure. These techniques include, but are not limited to, all lawful forms of questioning, employed by us law enfor<:ement and militarY inte=ogat1on personnel. lImOng Standard ,Teclmiques ,are the us~ of isolation; sleep deprivation ~ot to exceed 72 hours. reduced caloric intake (so long as the amount is calculated to maintain the general'health of the detainee). depri~ation of reading material. use of,loud music'or white noise (at a decibel level calculated to avoid damage to'the detainee's hearing). and the use of d i a p ~ , eriods a to exceed 72 h o u r s . _ I \, ALL DNS THIS OOC OF CLASSIFIED TOP S TOP TOP , Enhanced TechniqUes are techniques that do incorpO:r:at.e phylticalor psycho,logical pressure'bE!yond Standard Techniques. The: use of each specif;!.c Enhanced Tec~quellll1st be appr~d ~y Hea~arters in advance, and may be, employed only by approved 'interrogators for use with the specific detainee, with a?propriate,medical and psychological participation in the p.r0cess. These t$chniques are, the attention grasP r ,walling, the facial hold, the ,facia). slap (insult slap)', the abdolllinal slap, Cl~ed confinElllli>rit, W411 standing. jJt:.ress PCsitions, sleep deprivation beyond 72 hours, the use of iiiapers for prolonged periods, the use of, harmless inse~ts, the'water board, and such other techniques as may,h,e specifically approved pursuant, to para9'1'aph 4 bel"".' The uS,e of each Enhanced Technique is subject to specific temPoral, physical, and related conditions, including a competent evaluation of the medical and psychological state of the detainee. 2. llledi c a.1. and Psychol<>glca:L Perso=]. be~~~'..... Af.2£2priate medical and psychological personnel shall readilY,avai1ab1e for consultation and travel to'tbe ,interrogation site during, all detainee interrogations ernp10yingStandard Techniques, and appropriate medical and ,psychological personnel must be on site during all detainee interrogations ,employing 'Enhanced TeChniques. In each case, the medical and psychological personnel shall suspend the interrogation if they'determine that signifi~ant and prolonged ,physical ox: mental injury, pam, or suffering is likely to result if 'the int~rrogation is not suSpended. In any such instance, the interrogation team shall immediately report the facts to Headquarters for ~agement and legal review to determine whether the interrogation may be reSUllled, 3. rnt..,rrogation Peraonnel The Director, DCI' Counterterrorist 'Center shall ensure that all personnel directly engaged ~ 'nterro ati of, ersol1S -detained- pursuant _ have been appropriately ~creene rom n me ca, PSYC 0 ogical, and security standpoints}, have reviewed these Guidelines, have received appropriate training in ,their ~lementation, and have completed the attached Acknowledgment. TO 4. Ji.:pprovalli ReQuhed Whenever feasible, advance approval is. required for the use' of Stan\lardTechniques by an interrogation team. In .all instances, tbeir use shall be documented in cable traffi",.. pdor approval in writing ·(e.g., by written memorandum Or in cable traffic) from the Director,. DCI CoUnterterrorist Center, with the concu=ence of the Chief, CTC Legal Group, is reqUired for· the use of any.Enhanced Technique(s);' and' "",,,y·.be provide<). .only where D1CTC has determined that· (a) the specific detainee is believed to possess 'information ~ut risks to the citizens of the United 'States Or other nations, (b) the 'use of the Enhanced Techniciue(s) .·is appropriate in order .to obtain that information, (c) .appropriate me9ical and psychological per~onnel have' concluded that the use of. the Enhanced Technique(s) is not expected to produce 'severe physical or mental.pain 9r suffering,' and (d)" the personnel authorized to .e,lllploy the Enhanced. Technique.(sl .have cOlllPleted the attached Acknowledgment. Nothing in these Guidelines alters the right to aot ·in self-defense. 5. Recordkeeping In each interrogation session in which an Enhanced Technique is employed, a contemPoraneous record shall be created setting' forth the nature and duration of each such technique employed, tile identities of those present, and a citation to the required Headquarters approval cable. This information, which may be in .the form of a cahle, sb~ll be provided to Headquarters. API'ROVED: .,, J : . . acknowledge that J: have read and Uridarstana and will. c0111Ply with the 'Guidelines on rnterro tions Condqcted Pursuant to Name Da-t:e . .. "'~~, TO Appendix F -""'~"'-" , .....-quires the presence of a physician. 2 _ ... ~ effect, and his psychological state strong enough that no severe psychological harm will result. The medical"implications of the DCI guidelines are discussed below. General intake evaluation • t 90l : Although brief, the data should reflect what V!lis checked end include negative fmdings. Medical treatment 3 TOP ------- -,-----,-------- -; . ~- Uncomfortably cool environments Detainees can safely be pla~ed in unco lengths nf time, ranging from hours to day~.. Core body temperature falls after more than 2 hours at an ambient temperature of 10°C/50°F. At this temperature increased metabolic rate canllot compensate for heat loss. The WHO reCOIIlIl)ended minimum indoor temperature is 18°e/64°p' The "then:noneutrnl zone" where minimal compensatory activity is required to maintain core temperature is 20°C/6SoP to 30°ClS6"F. Within the thermoneutral zone, 26°<;:nSop is considered 0 timall comfortable for lightly clothed individuals and 30°ClS6"F for naked individuals. If there is any possibility that ambient temperatures are below the thermoneutral range, they should be monitored and the actual tl;mperatures documente' 4 ---- . TO White :noise orloud music As apractical giJide, there is no pen:1fanent hearing risk for continuous, 24-hoursa-day exposures to sound at 82 dB.orlower; at 84 dB for up to 18 hoUrs a day; 90 dB for up to 8 hoUrs, 95 dB for 4 hours, 'and 100 dB for 2 hours. If necess' instruments can be provided .to measure these ambient sound levels. Shackling Shackling iii nQll-6lIesBfu:l poSitioos reqlljres only moni~g. for the development II - , . !.l!l.1!J')1I! .• • . ;, '-at '!.' 1 " I ... ed. ~u i I I . i!IoI~ 5 ------- ---------------- ------- 6 -'.-- _.. _-~,------ - - - .. oN 1JU4('~ Sleep 'deprivation NOTE: Exami~ns perfonned during periods ofsleep depriviltitm shoulitnclude the current numher ofholtT'S wi/hollt sleep; and, if oit/ya lnief re#preceded.rhis,period, the specijf.cs ofthe previous deprivation also should be recorded. , Cramped confiDwen\ (Confinement boxes) confinement in, the small box is allowable up "to 2 hours. Confmement in the large box is limited to 8 consecutive hours, . 7 $"S!?'t ' Waterboard This is by far the most traumatic of the enhanced interrogation techniques. The historical context here was limited knowledge of t1ie use of the waletboard iIi SERB training (several hundred trainees experience it· every y~ or two). 'In the SERE l1lodel the subject is immobilized on his back, and his forehead and eyes covered with a cloth. A sl:reaiI\ of water is directed at the upper lip., Resistant subjects then,have the cloth, lowered to cover the nose and mouth, ali the water continl!es to be .applied, fully satlJrlldng the cloth, and precluding the pllllsage of air. Relatively little water enters the mouth. The occlusion (which may be partial) lasts no more than 20 seconds. On removal of the cloth. the subject is immediately able to breathe. but coutinues to have water directed at the upper lip to Prolong the effect. This process can continue for several minutes. and involve up to 15 canteen cupS.of water. Ostensibly the primary'ctesired effect derives from the sense of suffocation resulting from the wet cloth temporarily occludiug the nose and mouth, ,and p.!iychologicallmpact oft)le continued application of water after, the doth is removed.' SERE trainees ustially have only a single exposure to this teclmique, and never ;more than two; SERE tniiners' consider it their mOst cffecti:ve technique, and deern-it virtually irreSistible in the trainillg setting. \ I . .'. . B $zu.. . ;;q .- . ' . The SERE training program has applied the waterboard technique (single exposure) to trainees for years, and rePortedlY there have been thousands of applications without significant or lasting medical yomplications. The procedure noneth!;lless carries some risks, parti.cularly when repeated a large number of times or when applied to an indfvidualless fit than a typical SERE trainee. Several medical diniensions need to be monitored to ensure the safety of the subject. . ' . In our limired experience, exteIlSiVe snstalnCli use of the waterboard can introduce . new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue. or psychological resignation, the SUbject may simply give up, allowing eXcessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness. ·An uiJresponsive subject should be righted immediately, and the interrogator should deliver a soo-xyphoid thrust to eXpel the water. If this fails to restore normal breathing, aggtessive medical interveI).tion.is required. Any subject who has reached this degree of compromise is not considered an appropriate cwididate for the waterboard, and the physiclanon the scene can not approve further use ofthe waterboard without speciflC C/OMS cODSultation and approval. '.' A rigid guide to medically approved use.of the waterboard in ~tially healthy individuals is not possible, as safety· will depend on how the water is applied and the specific response each time itis used. The following genersl'gnide1ines are based on very limited knowledge, drawn 'from very few's\lbjects whose experience and response was quite varied. These represent only the medical guidelines; legal guidelines also are operative and may be more' restrictive. 9 . '1'0. . TO A series (within a "session'') of several relatively rapid waterboard applications i~ medically acceptable in all helllth su .ects so Ion as there is no indication ofsome ..- ~ _ _ _ Several such Sess101lll per 24 hours have been employed.without apparent medical C9IIJPlication•. The exact number of sessiollll cannot be prescribed, and will depend on the response to each. If more·tha.ri 3 SesSiOllS Of ~ or more applications are envisioned within a 24 hours period, a careful medical reassessment must be made .beforeeach later session. . By days 3-5 of an aggreSsivCl program. .cumulative effects become a potential com:ern. Without any h3.rd data to quantify either this risk or the advantages.of this ·technique, we believe that beyond this poiI!t continued intense·waterboard applications' may not be medically llI?proprlate. Continued aggressive llile !>f the waterboard beyond' ers or to .this point should be reviewed b the HVT team in Consnltatioil with Hea any fU!:ther a ive use. NOTE: In order to best inform fiiture meliical jUdgments and reccinrntendatimis, It i.r iinpoTtII!fJ that every application afthe waterboard be thoroughly dOcU11lented: h~ long each application (and the entire procedUre) lasted, how much water was used In the process (realidng1hat much splashes. off). how exactly the water was applied, if a seal was achieved. if the naso- or oropharynx wa.sfilled, what sort o/volume was expelled, how long was lhe break betWeen applications,' and how the subject loolced between each treatment. 10 fts • -----_._--------- .------ - ----24..)4'#111 ------ ~.- .. t@.y; 11 TOP ._-----_.. .i i I I ,U0 0 I ..h ....h--- .... -·~-a (sl ) (S) q) 9 )!p'sSOP A!!.1n;<,sr! 1:rH::>35 dOl (~. q)h....h..__ ... ORorooo - - · - - - - r - - . . . - . . l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I "'~ ~~ '~ ........ HIOlOOO I I) 'r I I i I ) . .. £9B£OtlSOJ El [ L . ....Jf1ffi[Ol!S dOli <:' \ j I (;!lOl000 Ze01000 . ~ . . .-:i. .3raelq 4trecropuntr! tpl aaed spa, I _ l .r l- 'Lams d01 \LffiKlHS dOL E,98EOVSOD '.' £,98EOtiSO:J 1 1 __ .c_._-_..--·· ..l"""I·- - .. ---------.1 E ) "_. _.~_ I £801300 II I I I i, I \ ) .1 ) ----- 1_ _-:- -=1 --lL.--Wjlifutrn;)tIS dO .. 1-.1 E,98£OvSOO ------~-_ ---~ --.-.------- -1· \ ... , ). I I L -----~--,:=-=-=-=-l=-=-=-=-~~;J~as~d:O:J,------~; c-' ) £98EOv£OJ g 0 T 00 lacas dal, - ".':" ) 1 \ \L~ -~----r--'------~ as dOl ) .- E,98£OvSO;) £,98E0t7S03 9801000 as dal. a " f· ) A ) S 60,L £98COD,C00 E.98£OvSOJ · _ - - - _ _.._--- .. .. I t.I'[ '----~._--' . ~gOTOOO ____?'.s'O'1 ) j ) ---L--~HSdO.L E,98£OvSOJ C05403863 TOP SECJW!l .. ''''''0-- , ] --------------SECTION 1.0 - OVERVIEW __J 1.1 Overview I I !=fforts against-the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization have ushered h!.mdreds of suspected and known group members inlo custody. Ma,ny of these detainees have proven to be sources of actionable Intelligence dealing with a wide range of counter terrorist issues.- A small number of these detainees are recognized as well-placed AI Qaeda operatives, who hold secret considerable Information on their organization's past activities and fulure plans. These targets of higher value, or High Value Targets (HVT), have been uncooperative during debriefings, and Tesistant to our standard interrogation efforts. In fact, extensive experience with AI ( Qaeda prisoners has made -it evident that certain detainees have receiVed formal training in techniques to resist interrogations, and that they are particularly adept at - . using cultural differ:ences as both an interactive impediment to the interrogation process and as a psychological support mechanism behind which to hide. from interrogative efforts. --:c--,-_I As the war against terrorism continues, more HVTs will beeaptured. Ito set up and train interrogation In order to effectively deal with this special pOpuiation! Director, Counter Terrorist Center tasked theC teams w!)ose members have me skills and experfence necessary to_navigate past resistance, and empk>y-Systematic interrogation strategies to acquire intelligence. Incumbent to this approach is resistance technique identification, and,when serviceable, implementation of certain specialized countenneasures. '~ [ [TOP": I 0001038 I [ ? ----~--~ ~ 1--·--f1!' ._ _. _ - - i 1380TO Off &fJOlOOO L _--. pupas dal. ) ) .J ) '--- I =:J jLffiibas dO.L £98E04900 ' ...... 0601000 i \ ' .',~ I ) I I \ I _ _ _ _ _~aSdO:L E98EQl7S0J ---11 ] ) I \ \ ) S98£OtSOJ C05403863 .,' .~~"'""'" c I -~=~==O~'""l-;' -~-'.. ' . ___--.J j3 sophisticated level of resistance training Is available to high-risk AI Qaeda operatiVes. \iOffiis eniJ;STillffijIl'[Ci'a1fed eftect1Ve countermeasures ·have been developed in such a way not to violate United swtes Federal and International torture prohibitions. { ..:.... - I L __ 1 TOP SEC~:J'---_- -I~~..J'! L . ,.. J I 0001092 --- -1 .... . __ ]0 '- C05403863 TOPSECF ( I -, I I 2.2 Anticipated Future Demand· , L_~= __J Results from the first AI Oaeda HVT interrogated using the aforementioned enhanced techniques, Abu 4ubayda, have been outstanding. Abu Zubayda reached a satisfactory level of compliance in August 2002. Since April, the interrogation team has produee{--'-'----lactlonable inteillgence disseminations from Abu Zubaydah. This has ultimately led to some instances of the US Govemment being able to neutralize AI Oaeda capabilities worldwide before there was an opportuni~ for those ~apabUities to engage in operations harmful to the United States. Because of this, US Government declslon ma!'ershave a positive . view of the program, and there is pressure to increase HVT interrogation Program capabilities In the shortest time possible. i \ fts the success of the program and of otl)er counter AI Oaeda activities continues to lead to the cap\)Jre of additional HVT candidates, it can' be reasOnably expected,that intelligence disseminations will lead to even more HVT candidate captures and the likewise increase in demand for more HVT program services, 2.3 Operational Assumptions D ReglJ ired resources will be approved and available far the HVT Interrogation Program as depicted in Section 4. Such resources are critical to the success of the Program's ability to meet identified customer reqUirements. ( __ -lm~r--~-~-", 1 __ I 0001093 _ --.Yf 1 176 T 0 0 0 • anuoo Allenb amsua sapikque pe jo igeiwano pawaturtoop Hem tplits wai6wd 6UpOltIpt.11 Hue Ouplexpeigssetbe ue ti6no.n.p astpadxa Buluiewiew isaieplpueo alepdoidde la wad e Lucug msle.olotioAsd uops&tha;u1 pp laquinu au; Oupearau! Allruweo Aq mimes jap!BoloqoAsdi pagenb puewep u! asewou! atp Jo) eppwid Hine wwboid E9 8£017S03 C05403863 TOPS~ FLE2D4S dos, .~_. ( L_ 1 SEC~~ rt _ _ITOP dO! ..; L~ I I . ~ 1 0001094 = If" C05403863 _, '( 2.4 Technology '~~ ," , I I , . ._. _ ._---j -----, r ( L ,_ C" - ,,] As directed by the Director of Central Intelligence on 28 January 2003, Interrogators may only lJse "permIssible Interrogation technig~.J:.tlIDl~Sibl§...techniques include Standard and Enhanced ~Ilenhanced techniques reqUire prior [ Headquarters approval based on the provision of a detailed interrogation ' plan. o Standard Interrogation Techniques: These are techniques that do not JDcorporate physical and psychologIcal pressure. These techniques Include, but are nQ~ limited to allla'i'lfulforms of questioning employed by U.S. law enforcement' alid military Interrogation personnel. Isolation, sleep deprivation (not to exceed 48 hours), reduced caloric Intake (so long as the amount Is calculated to maintain the general health of the detaInee), deprivation of reading material, use of)oud noise (not .~. - .",: L ---'----"-rSEC~~_===_~_==_~ i------~ 00010% I 1. ,---, lib • C0540386'3 TOP SECREri~ ..... ~ .' C _ 1"'-----' ( I 'oamaging); and the use of "diapers" for Ilmite-d'periods :.. . }, and moderate psychological pressure are authorized. \ -, I I ... _ _..__.. .__J I C"]Shackles may be used for security reasons while a detainee Is standing; so long as due care is taken to· ensure t' th sack es a e I"elther too 10 " • ' I ( I Accordingly, where shackles are to'be employed on a standing detainee's wrists, they should be shackled loosely and 'at the level Qf the detainee's head to avoid problems during this' phase. .' '--'-1 I C._.._] __ _. ._.._. _._. . I [ '-'1 Please note that shackles may be used to keep a detalne.e In a I Enhanced Techniques: In.volves techniqu.es that DO standing position during periods of non·enhanced sleep deprIvation (shorter than 72 hours), so long as the aforementioned considerations are foHowed. .. ~1;:;Cnc"'o::-;:r:;::p;:;Cor:;:ac2te physica.l or psychological pressure beyond standard I ( techniques. All tedirilqu!is are designed to not engender lasting and severeniental or ph'ysical hanm to the detainee. It Is understood t~h~at~, some Interrogation technlgues Incorporate mild phySiCal pressllrel Is not intended, . . however, that the detainee actually suffer severe physical or mental painj lIt I , , -------lp~ L . I I .00109' L.. J/; C054-Q3863 . " 'TOPS~ I 'OJ /~'.,- ~ ( In additIon, appropriately traIned medical and- (}SYchologh:al perSohnel'are present throughout the process. Our attorneys have' presented our legal analysis to the legal adviser to the Natlonal'security Councll, to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Departnient of Justice, and to the CrIminal DIvision at JustIce, and the Counsel to the PresIdent has been briefed as well. These enhanced techniques Include: ] I , I ' ( Facial slap Facial hold AttentIon grasp Abdominal slap Wailing , Stress positions Sleep deprivation beyond 48 hours Use of dIapers for prolonged periods Use ,of harmlessInsects Cramped confinement Water Board LJ The use pf each technique related condltlons, Is dependentcompetent for each detainee to Including a specific temporal, physical'; and evaluation of the medical and psychological state of the detainee. I The use of each specific enhanced technique must be approved by Headquarters In advance, 'and may be employed only by approved interrogators for use with the specific detainee, with appropriate medical and psychological participatlonin the process. I IIcompliance to'safety and legal issues will be addressed before any ~atlon of physical pressures can be used against the detainee. The , detainee's physical and emotional state will be a prime consideration before any application of physical pressure. ( -i " ,;:=" ~~ I bop SEC~-' - ' =:J I I 'IlM1Jm7 L------Jfli °0""" C0540386:3 . TOP SBI.,;LU>'j I ~. ~'l'" I I { ____.____ .I I These techniques will be used on art as needea basis arid not all of th.ese techniques will 'necessarily'be used. The interrogation team will use these techniques In some combination to convince the detainee , tliat the only way he can influence·his environment Is th'rough cooperation. Generally,' these techniques are used in an escalating fashion, culminating in the water'board, but not necessarily ending in this technique. Note: the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions. ] ( ( l ( I I I 1_.'_... r ·-~OPSE~ L-- 18,--'--_----, OOO!098 ~--·_---·····-'-·-·-1 I I.~.m_. __ VI 1-----6GOTQOO ) ) I 1-------- - - - -- -- ---- ---i- . ) \ - I I , I ! ---l[--FRblIS a:~.L ~9BE0f7S0J i .--~ I r-le'I ~- --.J ,'1 I ! i oonooo c----.C: U-_d~B:S 0:0:1[------- OZ _-: -J ., I , I I I I \ ) £!S9 BEQ vSO;) L~_----__;==:c=:::~J;;;;:;-----c-- . i ?:r!1 I Cap2s cragTZ 10noo o .1••791101.111n1.. I- I I i , ) I \ ) ""'?> • Icazoas • ., . E9 8£0t 900 ' £;98UlflSO;) get eer r \ '------ _-------'==~I au laces U tOTT GOO ) z~on ~~O~OO~~::~::::~==;.,g~~H=S =..,;.".===~\ -- .. ----~==== =dO=lLI ! ) .... ,.~ , [calms aw. £.98 t: 017 S0;) E.98E0trG03 --- ~i J~I ~ \ £011000 _L-- ( I \ .• , I ) ~'Oll--=l \ \ ~J I r L1 .... _ ._ - _ - . _ _ i'onooo 1_'.~_- ----l'rl~dOli __ _ vi: _ .~ ..... -- -~_. I I r 7l"\' - - - - - - ) . '-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ \ i ) _ _.J....._ _ ~~aSclOl £98EOIiSOJ (tiL..-__ "-1 90nooo ~"OLI'----- --I .~. ) I I j I \ HSdo.L t.Ol~OOU L L~~::: J~~ ,ml LZ _> ) I \ I I \ , L ~---~l __. ---c .I.E:lK:l'ilS d.Ol £98£GvS;O::l ---- -- I ~. I I ! flonooo ) -- I i ----I \ I r· ) ..<:: ..... ..•. -' ..." . GonOG(f . .~ -- I I I .. I~-I ~ . f!IDI:Yt!S dOL :=J E:98EClllSOJ plIORS dot 01HO{)O oTTIO00 ) r. ) C98£OvSO;) C98E017903 THHJOO ) ) ---I I I ! ! ) \. ~ ~--~~~:':l1!S r-- am. £.98£Ov<;;OJ tfi-i I I FAIDAS ci0.L <:Hl000 TIT 0 0 0 tE ., J r--- - . - - - . , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- \ \ .---'----;;bs;s Baas dOL 401 E9.8E0VS03 £98EOvSO;) I 1 ) €"1 I nHoon _J --J --~HSdO.L1 EE -1_ 1.- - - - - - - - - -l I , I .. , I I \- \ E.98EOvSOJ } I I I .I j ·1 i .. E98£GvSOJ 51~--11 IL _ SHTOOO l _ ~"Oll .~ 1 ) ) ,, 1------- ) 1 ....,...- I__.J--_--,-~-3:8am _ E9B£GllgOJ -] U _I ! ) JI31R}3 1 "·.1. :t j l)RA~~rf T/~CP.ET 0003n ~, 'J.:I'U~-, n 'i ... ~ 11 " \1 Psychological Asso§sm~nt uf ~~lIl.al-~Abedin al-<~id~~en ~fuhmllr:.ad Hassa,l'J. S\:k;a. Ablll.ubavcah following %yr.;ho14gica! assessment ofZain al~'Abcdin ~l~A.bideen Bas,,,n, (ak.•, Ab\1 ZUbaydah) is baseu upon the result' ofdirect interviews ;en;atioD5 of the suj,ject, and from infurrnation i nres.1 , ' fJa f.!:foUL1$UnfQg:rilltiilii. Fer at least a decade, subject has, lived and worked wiU"liil an c,' :vim.nr.n~.nt that has ¢ondn~edl nl\,.'1Llred, hrt\~nslfied, and rew:mied his nlGic:l; bel1e:fs. T:: folluwing is a p<~.' low-level mttiahidia (called C,Hlner by some) by ng~ of 31 i~ third or fourth mm:rhn ai-Ca'ida. No one rises to lhai level b su~b a short periq. oftinle '-'litlm!..!t be,ing dedicaled, tTIlsted. ~Jld stroilg, Alleged to l<;hniq~< ' d th ' l' lwa VJ;;'I.\ m ~\' maJor a!- Ja:. ~. ~e;ronsl openlt1cn; s~r.)e:' as e Operatlfma ptailH::.:r •. ' ';j;:"j for t1~ mill~.p.ium plot (~OOO), t;,~e .Paris emba.%'Y (20Q)) and a planner of ~he i l SeptP. .ber bij11CrJ-r:g5 i"'hifh killed and maimed thcnsa.'1ds i,)f i~meric~n5, Served as se:"r Usama Bin Ladi9 al1d: played a ke.y role in the and traini', of operatives on ~1rhr:lf of aJ.·Qa·icla~ the Egypn:m !slamic Jihad, and olh.~~r· norist eleme.."'lu; in~id.~· Pakistnn and Afghanistau. Ho W!:5 a key player in hr~at la.st keM and appears to be engaged in ongoing terr p1ann, !.~elltf.:'fHml mov~me.nt , ,,' ' 1~K; p.gw,nst··S':.nttTt$.~s. Z· u _1Jvayr"'l..i.llS w-ant~ d"'" lOr \' tn ':(i!:uan ,~;s:ok l,~. Mill"'l I iUHl pkit. ; ' Directed the S"t:i.~,"l~f.l or" a Bill Ladin ~el1 in jordan dla\ W~ dist"uptd in ;\mma" ~I". D~.cCl1:;· ~r 1999 :for l~l(lrti~~terrDrisi ...acts agaiJis.t ~i$ iiflJ bl,·~t:.1i targets durin:i "he , Millen~., celonrat:ons m•..1ordan. two c.entr:l! hgnre,s Ofh'1i.': pInt, ui.,der a.rj·~"St identif.id Abu Zubaydah as; being the prirna..'1' ~ltpporter (If tb~ .cell <'.'';,'' o'~1~"" V {D) .l.{";. 1" -.- y a J_ -,- '_ .. _.,.. -. 1/3 ~ :t~.~ II' t "._ .. ~ DR A II 'I !~TLcRE'.T T/E,,; .'" , , " ~~ uly Camp Comnl~nder foral.Qiida training c ally approved entfy a.'ld graduation of ali trainees :i:rc2i1999-2000. From 1996-1999, -appr-,o·,·,ea"'a"n"in·d"h·m"'i-uals 1n an"'d·o·u'!'t·o"rAfg!l>lJlistan to L'J.e irairiing camps. No one came in and Oul of Pes~a:v~r! ?akistr:11 \:.;thputhi~ knowle~ge and a?pr~v3.~. Served 3s al~Qa:idf:!5 c\',o~~nator of e;\terr~al c'pntu:rs or foreign c.ofJunumcahoTI3, l Acted as al~a'jda's Cl officer 1d was lnJBted to find spiea in lll~jr mid." RiO,.: .ant Histo;,y: Sllbje4t repuTted that he pmisted for a rew yean in hoiding Ollt.) the po. ibility that he cou14 eventually trmlsil.ion from jihad life back into college ana pur.uit , his traditional. ed~cational. career, and family goals. As time psi~g te JRiiS:2e ;iOld d~vo'.c b.in';~~'f[ tD 5ihad ~jnce tho ~I:id~ i 990)5. PeD;;' ,n.!1.\y: S\1b)ei'! is ailllghly self-cl1rected llldlVl\-10US H~ffi,)rts" to demonstrate th~t h~ is really a ruther ~chumb!"e a~d reguir,ir v."~:iu.biect cl~arl1rn{)S5eSo-~ an air i.."If L'.onfi:1~nC:~~ .C::r':lf¥a.~.c=:l!Y'~n!'.,. t 'iCti0115, '!1,. "'lthOrity. 2 1 I~ !~ TO~CREr DR'~T 0001.375 tPr~~/-~ ". c.,. ... .. ·~ _·,·C~.~~~"'- .... ~.·"'4""'-·' .' •...,: ~'.'. ..'.:._:.".,,,. '':':''''''-'':~"~ ' 'T , *~.:r.~.r.:~ ;: :..:.~ "",,;,,,·,,,.:.~ ·~ :c...,·~ ~.;· .. .. .. >, v· ' •..."q. . ~.~, .;,;.:~,y=-.,- ' ,~,'''~ ~ ".: .;.• ~.:<> ,:..;.-''''','''' .. .......:.•. , .... 1:1l/03 PRAl1'V ECRJrr i,I 7 lllotivatioul, strongly in?' feelings. ]j c!.'epenmngj ',vho is ske~ vigiJa;>! an;' ~. revealed b1~ejf.. rcport {mC':.uc.:~.g dianes. '1.ua mterti1e-w) aces not. indK:ate tballie lUiS n h13tory of l~('Hl dif:11:rbnncc (,r i;lther pSi'Chiatric plilid,ogy. Tndeel\ bis r0F0Itc.1 and known tris~\.y htdica~e5 th:i! he ~B rer!1<\hologkaJ princi!llcs. intelligence, and discipline tl) avoid "c I'mbl<.!'l i• Ii t t • 1 • ,erieneed . Du~ to his incredi~ly strong resolve, expertise in civilian warfare, resistlUlCe to intenl"{\(ion iechniqu~s (lh latter two which he tr~inJid hunOre't-; of other;. on) tllis •. expeneoe ;, ",as one of the feW?w,H led to him pro\'irl~ng signillc3Bt actionable intellige, " .A~ !l?,s be, CQn~p ~~n.g to :he ~es~abl~Rhmem o\Sbari,l a amc.mg ~1l:'Jlinl COlxntnes, . ,11!l1bmDlg to the t'pX!l:"lg up' ot ~·lus·hms througfJout thcworltl, ana. oorrtribu:.' ; l(~ the restoration ~f tho PalestirJall ho.mdwd. r .."""", .',.,' ~... "' tl ~~ ~l 'TO D~R T . ""'"i.,. 1 ,.. 1)001377 1vru::. ... ()r8'1/-r ,,., ',".<."'''';'"",." '''' """ ,>," . ' !:3I!03 "II, " '~ ','.' ~\ .... '" ,",.' " " " ."..",. " . ,., , .~,. •••• _~ ,_ ,., <•• , ';-,~., ."'.,." _ , •. J DRAf/ , ySECRET , " ~j H _--yitv3JlU lnterr,)~flti9.rr· Subject re!:ogni2.~.$ ilut his d\l.~Y as fl crJroujahd is iC delay, nlisle.d, a.'ld ti" \0 pt,'tee, what is mc~l critical to tbe success of : s caus~. He ~smnts. th~.t we lilllferstfEld t.hi~. T?m:i. he i~ no! iike.1v to be o intimidate", . ',r weakt,n,led. bv beih::z.,';cauy.hC in lies. ffis "iob i:=. te' 11,e_ Dunn b !nter~iew he , ,_ ,,"' e:q)leined" 1he j~ed to his nei};.1tL1cr;.;, to shopkeepers, to ban\e-!::5. tr~wcl Egcnt~, f:lrpDrt personne1 :U man.y otuers In qr(I ' protect " . " ~ct~~·m.es. f' SalG~ :. l'Ie, c, In hHi peopie· <'ll1\1 . . ite ',,,. Ee~ lie, ne.,~ e. sind Jjl:.'" He Dlides h.huself ~n IcR3fd to past deceptlofJS he m~--:aged with " f' . I: ' '" '.>,'" n ~:j ToUl'c1-uir DR . .iYT () ,.39/-5 ilil 1,1illJq~1 7t-iv-aa: \ - -D--...·:·,..·..···....·..·.·..·...·....··:_......·..·..·...··..... l'~ .. "....., • • J . . . TOPsBcRm ~ ~ " . r.:. "'. · · .· · ·: ·. r.c •• __ ••• n.. 00063 ·--··(b)(·1) . (b){3) F'~· I SUIlJECT., 1. I. . D~tall I ~ I Xntarrogat!ol1 llfforta I I ~I======~i _______..]"'!""" )Wl: ~l-N~$hir ogatlon eao' with the interrooetiou of me 2. I IA1.. N~$h:i.:d .. WUh the recent oapture of a hi~h.. ~8L~~Al.Q~'id~ oP~~tiY~.A1-Rahi~ 11_ s :LncerrO£lal:10n efforts. responaiblefor plahning the admitted a role in this) and in the Arab Peninsula region Warshi",,". ' Al-N.ashiri -is lleUevEl,r-to be USS Cole a~taoK (Which he has future attaoKs on US interests incl"ding attaoks em US . I 1 IAL-NaShil" has =dergonsL interrogation with the HVT Interrogators I ~ ® 0001308 TOP:4RE~ '.'..-"j.1..::.' 1 ~ '11 IJ i ... ~. ...... _-~ ~ ... .. ' " •• J " .I. ,,_, • • " " ,, '.: I,', , t. ) \ , E'd "."" II Ii ~" 'l _ ...L"",,, ~ "* i ! ~ OD07l. <-D..Q.1H-~ Iil ' J,j ~~ j" F 4 A j !I II Jj To: j John Yoo ~ II g ,,~ I >. 'i II 'I I, Phone: i (202) 514·2069 , l (202) 514-3713 Fax: ! (202) 514-9207 ~ . j! Date: 124 July 2002 -" Pages ~cludlng this 1 i! cover page: ! 7 I II II From: Phone: I ,I ~ ! Here is tile Psychological assessmSfl. Please feel frea to call me~t work or at l1o~e, whenever. II II ~:* ~~ 'I" ' n ", I > , ~ ,1 ;, I i,' 'I!I Thanks ,' h :;1 • ! ~ i . II ; " I I i d , ':'; n '...:.) "~'\ I 100D'iOO C1CL ~7~1 ~-:. . ~j' :.'.1 7125,\lZ 5:C<41'¥.,.J. . " ..•.,..... " ~i 1 , I , I I .' DR TOP ~T eRE!' .:iJn.w.:.' Ab%.!in aL~ideen Muhammad Ha.~sar% a.b. A.hu ZUba'JdA!', n I I Thfljtoilowiug PSyehGlot":eal assessment of Zsin arAbedin al-Abideen Muhllmrnaiirlassan, (a,k,a, Ab' Zuhaydah) is hased upon,the results of d\rett inte",\"w, with and. olf~.·rvalioos of the SU.' i ~ct and from informatiort obtilined from collatet'o som:ces sud!: as inlelligence ll!l• tl' II I . fuycholQgical ASSesSiWnt qr I I I .~ B ' v,ithin an e~ heliefs, T,,' particular -I et ~ ound InformatioJ For at least a decade, Suti eet ha.lived and worked , onmentthat has iondoned, nurtured, intens fied, and rewarded his radical following is a paI;}allist of respo~ilii1ities at .!he suhj~t has beld (no er), Subjecl is cUlfentJy 31 years old. i " t Abu znbay~l. worked from veb low-level mnjahidin (~I.ed courier by somc) by age "f '. 31 t , third or fourth ma~ in al-Qa'ida, No one rise to that level in such a sho.'i peri ~ of tim" wilhom *"log de! PJO~''ng terrorist aCls against Land lJiraeii targets dm-Ing the Mil . nlum celebration in Jordan. Twa celllral fi ,lres of the plat, under arrest ide" 'jed Abu ZUbayd i as being the primary ~orter of this cell and the plot, " , Managed a! ,work of lIail!iJlg Wamps, safelJ.ouses. and 'ahedln-related offkes in d P:t· and Afghanis~nj assisted in other e.xtr4 W Fe-WZts by WI'\'dng men, . ~war n ...v and materiais in ~upport of various jihads the -1<1. j fur, . I ~ . ;~;~,(i" 'I: ~ U % ~J TOjlffiCRET DR~r U\)I)O002 -~ ~ i ~ ~ > ~~ t norm;eO en !L.lty Camp eo=J;der for al·Qaida trainin 'cam~ =T I t i SECRET I' ~ I and graduatiO!l of all tra ees _ _ • circa~999.2000. From 19%·1 99, lif'PI'0ved all individuals m !llIlI=':!:oumt~of Mgt'!stan to the training carn s. No on~ eame in and Ollt of ar, Pa.l(istall with U! his knowledge and appova1, serVed as al·Qa'ida's :nator ofexternal ~ntaet8t or foreign cormn~ icanons. Acted as al-lfla'ida's ex offiCei' that a years in Onto the ~MllY that ne COul4evemualiy transition frGl1Jll3d Bf.:e back lUto college . and pursuit , his traditional ~ational, career, and f!!mil ' goals, As time passed he appellred to nd a sp<1 abollt a future 3S a. com uter expert or engineer. However, O"rtim~, the frequer't y and intensity of these i~ ughts and, feelings diminished. ' ' e began to !hink~ any activity outside jiha . as "silly'" Eventually, he understOOd . 1! his mimi andh . rt were devoted to serVing.•Allah and L~lam thr()ugh his jiiJr,d, ~e ~t:!ed that be has . "no" doubt~ or regretil a*,ut choosing to pursue and devote lliIn@lftojihad sicoCe tM Inid· 1990's. i . Rel!i\1m~t.t-lWor-:: SUbj~ report~ h~ ~ersis,J ~{}: ~~w + 1 f "las trusted to [)lid SPiJ in their midst. hold~ng ' t \ ~ . Ii SUbject is ~highly self~dirfK:,ted in.divltlual who pliu8 his ~~pe!~en He seeks to eXpfess his indepen~er:ce.by d+illg things;.. his own way alld ne,vmg hI. style to the ext~t wlhe can wlthm me sllftCiUreof rMICfi! salamt environroe . When he makes. oncessiolls, it is ~iithiu context c!f bis ideologiea] and religious c 'iCtirms., He has ~cissistic features that arerVide!\t in !Us attention to his appearance d in IUs obvious "e.,"fcrts" to demonstrate tha be is really a ralher ")mmb1c and regular v~" 8'!l,bb~:l niaarir nn't~B~~,p~~_ml nir nf {',o: ,.. authodtv, I''rl. ~: ::;: Hit'tV:, 1 t ttt "'"~ I, ~~ '~J. ,~§ ~.!i ~ [ , ~ ~. ~ m~REr DR~ (}{Hl0003 .:....,,,"'·c. 1"'>'-"" DRAA TO/RET I i ~ i fuJ: lQ.mU:!ylental Stat'lsfCoping Slgfu: Overa1l, I~ ubject)$ bitt'kgro:md as reveale.d dr-report diaries and inte.-view) }pes not bdicate that he has a bistory of ~od disturbance or~"'{her psychiatric patlw!ogi,·. Il1dzed, ilis repo.tted. and known h~VY indica::es that t~is ti:"Jnarkably resmem ~ confiden~ lhat he can overcome S ver5~ty. During th~ o·.;-casions tl1at he -cxperi$j::ces illcreased stress amI/or low mc.jd,' e may become sonlewl1at more widldraw12. *lancnoly,and reflective. However. .is shift in mood will likely last a relatively sh rt time. He denies and there is OIl) eviden in his tenorted hisfurv of thoullhtJiisQrdero • • ealth ·oblems. 'l b1 (indud~g ~ ;~ jl nR.61' rytSECRET Ii ~f~ "',",'- 1 II _. ! ; I t ! 7 = 5:04 pJ I TT I \ ¢R. i I ' 'I' additi01'~ heiOWed Strong &idaf sympathetic nervous s*t~m arousal (possibly fear) when he ex, 'enwl the iniual 'f0nfrontatlonaln di.!ocatiqn of e;;poctation during an intmogatio~ 'es'ion. Dee to hi~incredil>ly strong resQlve,~experti:\e in cinlian wmiare, resistance toJimerrogation teduli¥"'" (the latter two whioh he traind !llllldreds of others on)! this e"::~icnr;e was cne of ~ef{;;w that ted to him pro~d1ng signifkal1t a/;tionable intelligence'iliA"s has be-..Jl. obsenM throughout his rxent dtterdofi. he was able (0 quickly bou . e back frommese inost disconcerting mom~s and regain an fir ofcalm confidence, d strong resolve ~not pa.1ing witll cthtr Lhr~ai infonnmion. \ ' Worldvie~: Accdjding tn fh,o. ~llhil'i't , , , purSUing a Sj~rejitlad'l~ contdbuing to the estabLishment n~,Shad'a ft;.1long Muslim cou~..t:ries, co~:.'buUng to the "lif4ng l'p" of Musl1ms throu~lO'Jt the world. IIml contributing f.. Ulc restoration of the P~lestinia,"1 homeland. 1 statuslprtsti~ powerl inf!oenc~. }:erving the Ummah. servi~g the prophet and AHah. M~Jlions,. ~~hjXt'S p~mary moti.valiOlLI are (In in particul~rord.er): -h Pril1i.1~. S ~ t Qths. (in no ~::.rtic.uJar order) AbBiry tdfocus~ g0a1-directed discipline, in. :1ligen"e, emmionat rtsi1ience. streel savvy. a~i1iIY to organize and m~.nugt p"',.;:,ple. aoiiil' In del~gate tasks, \¢ell ooser"'lltion skills, adlijlmbility (can Ilnticipate and adapt. duress lllld with dunii1la. resources), capablt of asses_in. 1 ~ml•.. -I. ' 1 : "nrl ",,:fi .e needs. • • Uity to lldiJit £otls to e f.41 i!. ij "J !l h ~BCRb-r DR~ 0000005 fl ,11 - ... ~ ~ -D4 ;>It d2...f{12.., I ~~ ;,:::: ~t iJnd lnierroS:rt1on, Subjec~ rfC\I,gnil~S tqalh!5 duty nE a '1mujnhid b:; to de~YI mhlead. and lie to pro~;::! ;;,:~:>'lt is rnaM crl~ica; tc the cause. H.e ,"um~s t.ioat \'lZ, im.de-rsrand !h}~. iThl)~, h:- i~ not nkelv to b~ intirr.Jdared~r wtakenect hy hei!g ';taught ~fi It,c~. Hi$ .h;~ i) to lie. D1..lling intei\'iew h.:U H H ~:~ H 11 T~CRfl' DRifJ' OO(lfjfjt}6 90:P300o .~: ttI P3i)PFISO I D/ JO 1)1 74P ilt1SiSs ;:av t3. 4,411 can vn „"w t ift.t illyr,p18T031112I3, (Futtosizei 01 2:Drip T., 2:zip° :Ctretu • 5icir ,tip7 1P ., cictati Si:11 pact[ridx? oi • ssoqu?u Ilu ci p;Ii 31)-(a.q 1,qp:ii0ii reAl 1,40.111pFil9D1 ?LI ,I:paut.t. UPTiCi, ?n 01 4:4 cpf ...irri sau ii ,,1148m3„ • zsrvea :;.a Jo SSZ33113 ..:q ol :tiF11; ton 5; .,:q 'inta, nyi putIsa;ptn zit. Trio s#1.1msst ?}I iyipo . os NI 31 ;9311;13. IVe ir, M wi.,:t. 1410.0. CI zll put 'pvzigui i fferzip :In ‘! PPIT3CTILUt itt) i p"rsonn"" e:Pbi.n~~ ~ilt. f~e l~=,~,~~:~:;~ ~::!~:~r5~:~ ~;~P~~~~:T.:r:. ~;:~'1:;~1.~:~·:~_,.::~:~;~·1 ~~~~e~:,:~' a~v:;)~t '" "eal.succel!§. 301-1S lEa ~a ,.1ill.) vu.-.. ", ,~jc. lC ~.L"'l tl. .. p.<,p.e ",d ".1· .. "... h s.• ,J. l .. e. lie,liet Ee, ltc-211dlie:' He nric1es himseli \UrelH,!.nttC oaaLie-~'eri;CJJ} h'e.mm.}as:ed \lthh '!"!,. IIIII'·i; a.cquire:.., a Un:tcJ ~J~.t;Gn:~ ~?,;1Ji,;-·~'~:'.;'jn:liii:;:::n(:n c:?,ra. t,-, persistentlyj~mng the. 5arn~ He b·er a perioJ vf ~~~';ef~jl \~;,;:7~) ,'::~ 1I1f):i:S~S H~ hJS k?.rrJ~>~~ hi . ['f~. that theco4~inljicn of £!-"..irtiu! e~:~ptjr)n f:nd iyi!lg r:iY" pt {'.J.;. ....' . . . . " " . : ... 300m ta.~ e1.,?!'~n.c;::;{~!: n~ :.:. C~lOH'/';''''' \.\1' w{~ Eg'"Ttl!ll,g anG. H.U8S'i3:::; ITI ~.d'::l:lIm, subject l:~ .fanliHar aIl~t)tobablY '~\'eli \~c~'~,~d :·eg3tcing a]HQa·idc.'s dete:'(J0J ~H:{~ r~.3istanc·;: rH!.ini.ng rna!:erial~. fhns, one ",\'~u1d e\n\xt tha:, .'iubi~Ci woul;i ,-taw lnlf::.111;S -i~nd of knowled:2.~ t'l . . ' ---------- 1Sarcins itio.7.11.pp7 PTINPiS :OWN:UM TII liTPSP PI SUO:ip gialr.;3 tWE:1Wh', ii.oircasopp, •i.r!N•ctif itql:,??Ittuo!w:1 oo? ?irpip ??trip muittEop pap sp..vati?ei ?ll. 'Firm -pitu • ?1.74t;147;11.: icuTnctp ?TALpIti ?to 'al 34AZolPq :11: Si tut Sypi7?)-17 pu P:Rijr.Fit7Z-17, JflTE12 wkiii)afis.? PE1Q au 'stud ..to!sa3rrat R P t r;:io, qtqw411? .;:gfirant; ,t i ,11C1771 SflU1[10q2 ?t,1 7-74A Pa3:1131 ~ ha~ " 'W.' t,-lk""d \,,;.!": ~l'':'':''j'-; '~l-7.'J'J·'~\:iri ~l.1\d-it ;s~iik"':;· ,;~'::j Za"j!lhiri ["'!t'·"d. +-... ~~ I:'~ .... (..~ .. ~ ~ . ,~:. '~.' ~Al .~I"'. ...\. •.• a". ...~. Tr:":1:5211-1PlMni-4311, it ce imp Si i.ri I2t1,1 SicLnlat 0741 ISiglIS atpeoul ;SE:a:Si SLICJ:isn ,! itrawsp polnd 7 II totu t Plailn: ?to ,Sitta*Aptials[s.nci p u3licultu0:32tp /pip ~m, I 1 "8.0 ! I f t~'-' I 'lw ,'- _. ( . O···················· ·_·····..·····..··.. ····,~i:< ..· ···· ' . I~ i' :I I _ S:aeREi I : ~: .-' '. (b)(1) 00093 ·~)(3) -mJ092 ~r~g J Name Trained Start Date f{:,vJV Certification Date Initials Itl'./JY [ I Legal BriefIng I SERE transfer Facial Slap .. Attention Grasp .i , ~ ~ I : I , i ".f=1 r J i SileneingFaciai. Hqld , I Abdominal Slap . - , , , j I . r I I Walling 1 . ! I i i Ic ..._------ r . Use Of'water / i i -~.~ , , Confinen}ent J ~5 ;g.r;";~~J; ! ;.1/ b~ , tl.2.. W""/ ! ® SECRE1~ _ _ OOOO1i9 '-", .~"=. '~'*:.'"'::~' \ II B·········· 'm •• : _ _ •. ~m : m ••• : ~ - : •..• -::. . . . . : : •.• : •. c···· \ I(b)(3) SE¢'m .....""" ~ 00103 . ,;:.~ . Enhanced Pressnres NAME: Waterboard Date:· .""- \ \, , ; Trainer: Academics: . Practice: .. \ ~ Configuration: .Subjected: . Y . N ....Q.....Q1~lJ(mts \ .. . -~ L Operational Training .. ------- Test Certification .. .. I Si~attiIe: Trainer Signature: Date: nate: ----..J ~ 0000143 ~-.l \ _......0."' . ~r~ - -----"'---- - ------------------I .. 17 July 2003 ..... ® (b)(l ) MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: (b)(3) (b )(5) On 16 July 2003, I met with ~00047S J. .-.-._, ""'S~;' TOP J'cRET :-~;~;.~': .~: ... "." ..;' - I 1(0(-( TOP FFET ~ ".:~ ;~",:~ ...'::..= •••••••• ""';.:i" SUBJECT: ....,-">;., 7, , According to information from ,detainees has a1so provided a wealth of information about Al~Qa'~da plots. These include the followiq~: • • A plot against the ,U.S'. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. • The Heathrow/Canary Wharf plot" which involved hijacking airaratt to fly into and destroy both 'locations, The train track' plot where the operative ,woul'd loosen the spikes in an attempt to derail a tratn. • • " • The gas station plot where several gas stations were tO'be blown' up to create panic 'and havoc: • The Library Tower plot where the tallest building in California was to be attacked similar to the World Trade Center, The suspension bridge plot where the lines of the 'bridge were to be cut, th~s lll4king it collapse. • • TOP~RET S000477 .r_';. 3 ••: • : . ".-". :.. ' I/ol-3 ·_ .. -----.-._-.- ---" ------------------ ----- ---------------~r : r'/:J E~'::Ri::tr .: :.:;~~~ .. :'f.:. :":-::·:~~-::~e SUBJECT: 4. stated ChiH. del'al:-,'~'2S provi.ded ·infon"",. .-r,,·, ~.'"H led to·the arrest of ot.he,r terrorists, :: .;:....,.. ~::..:. :.:0'.,·1d':1.1 information that. lerj :.c. raid that net terJ j',;,r:\;', ~ 3 i n ,.\ ~ - ~}hibh !"JdV,= d . r 5. Decause of his position as chief of AI-Qa'ida operations o'.ltside of Afghanistan, Khalid Shaykh Mu:ha.rmned (KS~:! perso;l,-!lly recruited, tr'3ined, 0:- other\·.. ise had direct ~J~{)\./IF.:.',·.h j;-: ':,f Hh=:.ny t.errorist operatives. . KSH pro'lided iriEorr"ali{)n Lt~,at hp.lpe:d lead co the arrest. ot: lyman Faris, '::h~-:, ('hio t.ruck d:c:iver; Uzair I',:n~acha, a s~uggl~r; Saleh Alll\iHl, a. !,11eep.~r operative in New York; Majid Khan, an ,-,pl.:l·a1.:lve who could get into the U $. fld51.1y; an-d Arnar 'al Ba1.111:1il., KSH's n.~r-he·"", ~ ".. :':-- .... -'.,-:.;:::;..:.. .~".' .~; . ,-tho Zubayduh identified as one o·f operatives to tril';el to the u. s. to carry ~OOO4:76 7 .~<:. f(ECRF:1~ ! .).\\'. 2 . ~-:<;. <·"t·:~ i IiO{-)., ·J:U.t' /f:;C!{}:;·l· . ......./ ..• 7-.:.<" ; •.• :....:.~: .~:.-.}' SUBJECT, ~.;_. . . 9. , the question of whether actual plots had bee:q thwarted, '. opined that. since the operatives invol.ved in ll\6.ny of tih.e above plots had bee" arrested, they have, in effect, thwart~d the operation. The following captured 'terrorists were ,associated with plots; • Majid Khan, whose father owned a gas station, was associated with the gas station' plot, as well as the poison operation .. I' • . .. 1 , . . . ; F .:. -. tasked t • • k • " the ~ • - • • Khil.lad bin AttaSh . . . . . ., involved in the Heathrow·p?9t, • . California. Zubair was also i"nvoTved--fn -\:ne 'Library Tower p • Amar a1 Baluchi had the U.S. his target. Con~late in Karachi as -' 4. TO;!' SECRET, ..._< "-:,""' 9000478 n/". ~ -.' I 'LIOI~~ '~" _.- ---_. _ ----_. __ ._-_. ·l,. ~~sooos .~---'---- L -------/ (£)(q) . 96100.. ----.-------.-..--..--- . T:X//;r.:;;,'d;JP -: --, dOJ. .' • J .', (~)( q)-.- -:-:-------:· --- • --- · ·· ----------Ee:;;:;- c-U r n ..... 1XI I.r.mrjs dOo1 . Wd Q!i·Y!!·90 ... zoo• .taqwaAoN 0;: uo lues . .. '" E66£OfJC;()~1 .:;.'. , . 1 ; LU:J':IUj~~j • ......... TOP~ I' I =,----.Date,1 I SUBJECT,I I~c's HVT Interrogation Efforts ~. [ I SUI!Il1\ary, C·-.-· ~...incerrogation efforts. [ __ with the of AJ,.-Nashirir- \ 2. I CT~' s int~rroqation . - ---- .-==-- ~ ~. J to be 1 - . . eTC's I Al"Nashiri - with the recent capture of a Al-Nashir~ ~9 bel~eved Al QGi'ida operative, .IU-Rahim Al'-Nashiri, interrogat~on efforts~ responsib:le for planning the USS Cole att<8d direct~ for Hambali and ptovides fragmentary information •• _I I ~~;." 1~"; l;, f ': Khan, one of his Pakistan operatives. '#o'ho was also captured in March. delivered 550.000 to some of Hambali's operatives in December 2002, • "I. ~ .;:~. Ul; il ·: , , Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM) ;l·~"l'" "'J"" ' Zubair .. ~ ·'r •. ~: ' .. , :U·,;i'·,: June 2003 .•. ,,~ ~, ~. :" .11~~i!' o I use the InfOrmatIon provided by Zubalr 10 capture Hambali'. other key lieutenant, Beshir Bin Lap, a.k.a. Lillie, who provides 1M location of Hambali, leading to his :~>', ~ , ;. 1". '.'f" capture. i' i, : ;;; ~ :-:-.:." i',: :;, ~: ~: ~.: :/f·-: August 2003'::, 'Abel al-Hadi 10 us a coil 01 ;<, JI operatives whom Hambali h a d . sent to Karachi fo~training. When confronted with hi brother's Ham lIadmils 'hal he was grOOmin~ merbers of Ihe cell tor US opera(ron~t the behest of KStJ.--probably a part 01 KSM's plot to ny hijacked planes into the ;dent~es IJ I" I,,I,, . ,; ,': ,I ' :""'j".:: revela~ons, I",II' I'; ~~ " Ij .- _,., ~ ~ ~~~IMdin90n, "" 'T'Hi ii:' ,' oUSwesl ' ,:; ·_.~oo, I '1' II 1III - -', " ,,', ~ ," ;;:::;::'Ui',,:,t;m::",'; September 2003 September 2003 ~ I I I - I ----~-.~-----------------------, Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against AI-Qa'ida (S!jJ>W) Key Findings (U) Since II September' 200 I, detainee reporting has become a crucial pillar of US counterterrorism efforts, aiding intelligence and law enforcement operations to capture additional terrorists, helping to thwart terrorist plots, and advancing our analysis of the al-Qa'ida target. In addition, detainees have been able to clarify and provide context for information collected from other sources; they also have provided unique insights into different aspects of the terrorist organization, including its leadership' attack strate and tactics, and CBRN capabilities and ambitions. the reporting is disseminated broadl within the US Detainees have given us a wealth of usefu_information on al-Qa'ida members and associates; in fact, detainees have la ed some rol 'n nearly every capture ofal-Qa'ida members and associates since 2002, including helping us unravel most of the network -----------·------a-ssoeiated-with-the-now-detained-I+S-eptembennastermind-Ffualid-Shaykh-------Muhammad (KSM), KSM provided information that set the stage for the detention of Hambali, lead contact of Jemaah Islamiya (JI) to al-Qa'ida, and most of his network. • Detainee information was also key to wra al- a'ida members and associates as One of the gains to detaining the additional terrorists has been the thwarting ofa number ofal-Qa'ida operations in the United States and overseas, Jose Padilla was detained as he was arriving in Chicago with plans to mount an attack. Similarly, Walid Bin 'Attash (a.k.a. Khallad) was captured on the verge of mounting attacks against the US Consulate in Karachi, Westerners at the Karachi Airport, and Western housing areas. ~ Since 11 September, the capture and debriefing of detainees also has transformed our understanding of al-Qa'ida and affiliated terrorist groups, providing increased avenues for so histicated anal of Abu Zupaydah in March 2002, • In the nearly four years since 11 September 2001, successive detainees have helped us gauge our progress in the fight against al-Qa'ida by . of providing updat" 1iiiiIii~/ Despite the unquestionable utility of detainee reporting, uncorroborated information from detainees must be regarded with some degree of suspicion. Detainees have been known to pass incomplete or intentionally misleading information; moreover, we assess that each detainee ve likely has information that he will not reveal S~ET ~ETI ~ Detainee Reporting Pivotal for Against AI-Qa'ida Since 11 September 2001, reporting from high value al-Qa'ida detainees has become a crucial pillar of US counterterrorism efforts, contributing directly and indirectly to intelligence and law-enforcement operations against the al-Qa'ida target. In addition, detainees have been able to clarify and provide context for information collected from other sources' they also have provided unique insights into differe~t aspects of the terrorist organization, including its leadership, attack strategy and tactics, and CBRN capabilities and ambitions. Helping Target Other Terrorists (~) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------_.-----,-~,-,_., • Detainee reporting since early 2003 has been a High and medium value detainees have given us a wealth of useful_information on al-Qa'ida major foundation for much ofthe Intelligence Community's analysis on al-Qa'ida, both in terms members and associates, mcluding new details on the of current intelligence publications and of more personalities and activities of known terrorists. in-depth intelligence assessments. Detainees also divulge, either wittingly or unwittingly, details about terrorists who are unknown to us. As is information from other collection streams, detainee reporting is often incomplete or too detainee reporting is disseminated general to lead directly to arrests; instead, detainees broadly among US intelligence and lawprovide critical pieces to the puzzle, which, when enforcement entities combined with other reporting, have helped direct an investigation's focus and led to the capture of terrorists. _)87 Jtl:;3Ir~ iritbtlfr~lff~~ ~6ce;,'~' a11d:ilie This assessment was prepared by the DCI Counterterrorist Center's Office of Terrorism Anal C d o '" . ' - 0"- ." II. ,- 0 - , d to the Chief, ~ET Unraveling Hambali's Network In March 2003, al-Qa'ida external operations chief Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM) provided information about an al-Qa'ida operative, Majid Khan, who he was aware had recently been captured. KSM-possibly believing the detained operative was "talking"-admitted to having tasked Majid with delivering a large sum of money to individuals working for another senior al-Qa'ida associate. • In an example of how information from one detainee can be used in debriefing another detainee in a "building block" process, Khan-confronted with KSM's information about the moneyacknowledged that he delivered the money to an operative named "Zubair" and provided Zubair's physical description and contact number. Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June 2003. • During debriefings, Zubair revealed that he worked directly for Hambali, who was the principle Jemaah Islamiya (lI) conduit to al-Qa'ida. Zubair provided information • Bringing the story full circle, 'Abd al-Hadi identified a cell of JI operatives whom Hambali had sent to Karachi for training. When confronted with his brother's revelations, Hambali admitted that some members of the cell were eventually to be groomed for US operations-at the behest of KSM-possibly as part ofKSM's plot to fly hijacked planes into the tallest building on the US west coast.! C\J-~ • Next, KSM-when explicitly queried on the issue-identified Hambali's brother, 'Abd al-Hadi (a.k.a. Rusman Gunawan as a ros ective successor to Hambali. Brlnging New Targets to Light A variety of detainee reporting has provided us initial information about individuals having links to al-Qa'ida and has given us insight into individuals about whom we had some reporting but whose I See Appendix A: Capture of Al-Qa'ida's Southeast Asian Chief Hambali (S~l~'). (~ ~ET N~ ---._--------------------------------' ._- ---_._--------------~ ~T NO~ al-Qa'ida involvement was unclear. For example, detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of approximately 70 individuals-many of whom we had never heard of before--that al- a'ida deemed suitable for Western 0 'erations, Aiding US Law Enforcement Efforts ~ Many actionable leads provided by detainee reporting have assisted the efforts of the FBI, local law enforcement, and the Department of Defense. Such information has led to arrests, helped in questioning suspects, ~~ately be used in a judicial process. (~~ Soon after his arrest, KSM described an Ohio-based truck driver whom the FBI identified as lyman Faris, and who was already under suspicion for his contacts with al-Qa'ida operative Majid Khan. The FBI and CIA shared intelligence from interviews of KSM, Khan, and Faris on a near real-time basis and quickly ascertained that Faris had met and accepted operational taskings from KSM on several occasions. Faris is currently serving a 20-year sentence for consp~rac!, and~aterial su ort to a terrorist orgamzatlon. .----~---- • Ja'far al-Tayyar first came to the FBI's attention when Abu Zubaydah named him as one of the most likely individuals to be used by al-Qa'ida for operations in the United States or Euro e. ~~ KSM's revelation in March 2003 that he was plotting with Sayf ai-Rahman Paracha~whoalso used the name Saifullah aI-Rahman Paracha-to smuggle explosives into the United States for a planned attack in New York prompted the FBI to investigate Paracha's business ties in the United States. The investigation also involved questioning Paracha's son, Uzair Paracha, in New York and resulted in designating in May 2003 Sayf ai-Rahman Paracha an enemy combatant. Say[ aI-Rahman Paracha entered into US custody in July 2003, and Uzair was indicted in the Federal Court in Manhattan. Say[ aI-Rahman Paracha remains in detention at Guantanamo Bay. ~! Revealing Plots, Potential Targets ~ Detainee reporting has helped thwart a number of al-Qa'ida plots to attack targets in the West and elsewhere. Not only have detainees reported on potential targets and techniques that al-Qa'ida operational planners have considered but arrests also have disrupted attack plans in progress. N.QE.ORW7MR • A key Somali operative working with al-Qa'ida and al-Ittihad al-Islami in East Africa a hmed Guleed after his capture 'al-Qa'ida leade lanned to attack the US military at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti using explosive-laden water tankers. In response to questions about al-Qa'ida's efforts to acquire WMD, KSM also revealed he had met three individuals involved in al-Qa'ida's program to produce anthrax. He apparently calculatedincorrectly-that we had this information already, given that one of the three-JI operative and .. • • • d been in al-Qa'ida assoc • - .. I foreign custody for unrelated terrorist activity. US Targets Here and Abroad Abu Zubaydah was the first of several detainees to reveal a significant quantity of general threat information against targets abroad and in the United States-including the White House and other US symbols. • Reporting from Abu Zubaydah has been used as a baseline for debriefin other senior detainees Heathrow Airport Plot Shortly after his capture in March 2003, KSM divulged limited information about his plot to use commercial airliners to attack Heathrow Airport and other targets in the United Kingdom. He discussed the plot probably because he suspected that key al-Qa'ida 11 September facilitator and Heathrow Airport plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, who had been detained six months previously, had already revealed the information. • Debriefers used KSM's and Bin al-Shibh's reporting to confront Walid Bin 'Attash (a.k.a. Khallad) and Ammar al-Baluchi, who were caught two months after KSM. Khallad admitted to having been involved in th~ed that he had directed cellleade~to begin locating pilots who could hijack planes and crash hern into the a' Ort' Khallad said he and operative ad considered some 10 countnes as poSSI e aunch sites for the hijacking attern ts and that the narrowed the 0 tions to the robable tar et~~ attacks Debriefings of mid-level al-Qa'ida operatives also have reported on specific plots against US interests. ~ ~II ------------------, • Khallad's statements provided leverage in debriefings of KSM. KSM fleshed out the status of the operation, including identif~l tar~~~d Kingdom_ _ _ (tl/~) Revealing the Karachi Plots When confronted with information provided by Ammar al-Baluchi, Khallad admitted during debriefings that al-Qa'ida was lannin to attack the Aiding Our Understanding of AI-Qa'ida (~ Since 11 September, the capture and debriefing of HVDs has significantly advanced our understanding of al-Qa' ida and affiliated terrorist groups. Before the capture of Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, we had significant gaps in knowledge about al-Qa'ida's organizationlJillll structure ke members and associates, capabilities and its presence 1 m months of his arrest, Abu around the g 0 e. ----Zubaydah proVIded detaIls about al-Qa'Ida's organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi. Early in his detention, his information on al-Qa'ida's Shura Council and i ' . added to what we were eami • In addition, Abu Zubaydah's identification early in _0 I .. " I' I his detention of KSM as the mastermind of 11 September and al-Qa'ida's premier terrorist planner and of 'Abd aI-Rahim al-Nashiri as another keyal-Qa'i . Since 11 September, successive detainees have helped us gauge our progress in the fight against al-Qa'ida by providing updated information on the •• - •• 1 . - . I' .-. '.1 .. I. ,