CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

Gary H

New member
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

Enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed , none of them has died , and all of them remain incarcerated. (ABCNEWS)

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Nov. 18, 2005 — Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Contacted after the completion of the ABC News investigation, CIA officials would neither confirm nor deny the accounts. They simply declined to comment.

The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

When properly used, the techniques appear to be closely monitored and are signed off on in writing on a case-by-case, technique-by-technique basis, according to highly placed current and former intelligence officers involved in the program. In this way, they say, enhanced interrogations have been authorized for about a dozen high value al Qaeda targets — Khalid Sheik Mohammed among them. According to the sources, all of these have confessed, none of them has died, and all of them remain incarcerated.

While some media accounts have described the locations where these detainees are located as a string of secret CIA prisons — a gulag, as it were — in fact, sources say, there are a very limited number of these locations in use at any time, and most often they consist of a secure building on an existing or former military base. In addition, they say, the prisoners usually are not scattered but travel together to these locations, so that information can be extracted from one and compared with others. Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said.
 
The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.

According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level — by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use.

Two sources also told ABC that the techniques — authorized for use by only a handful of trained CIA officers — have been misapplied in at least one instance.

The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the "salt pit" that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia.

According to the sources, a second CIA detainee died in Iraq and a third detainee died following harsh interrogation by Department of Defense personnel and contractors in Iraq. CIA sources said that in the DOD case, the interrogation was harsh, but did not involve the CIA.

The Kabul fort has also been the subject of confusion. Several intelligence sources involved in both the enhanced interrogation program and the program to ship detainees back to their own country for interrogation — a process described as rendition, say that the number of detainees in each program has been added together to suggest as many as 100 detainees are moved around the world from one secret CIA facility to another. In the rendition program, foreign nationals captured in the conflict zones are shipped back to their own countries on occasion for interrogation and prosecution.

There have been several dozen instances of rendition. There have been a little over a dozen authorized enhanced interrogations. As a result, the enhanced interrogation program has been described as one encompassing 100 or more prisoners. Multiple CIA sources told ABC that it is not. The renditions have also been described as illegal. They are not, our sources said, although they acknowledge the procedures are in an ethical gray area and are at times used for the convenience of extracting information under harsher conditions that the U.S. would allow.

ABC was told that several dozen renditions of this kind have occurred. Jordan is one country recently cited as an "emerging" center for renditions, according to published reports. The ABC sources said that rendition of this sort are legal and should not be confused with illegal "snatches" of targets off the streets of a home country by officers of yet another country. The United States is currently charged with such an illegal rendition in Italy. Israel and at least one European nation have also been accused of such renditions.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1


I realize that this is non-firearms, but it is central to the protection of our families. This seems to be a well written piece. It appears that these techniques are used as a rare exception. I wouldn't even want to be the CIA agent assigned to this task. It is a horrible, thankless job.
 
The old "torture doesn't work" nonsense.

Of course it works, people have been torturing other people for millenium, if it didn't work, it would have died out a long time ago. It's easy to tell if someone's lieing, just ask them a question you already know the answer to.
 
They cut our people's heads off with swords on TV, and we can't beat the living daylights out of them cause that would be 'torture'.

I'd say lets get some motor oil and gasoline. It's crap that the geneva convention only applies to 'civilized' nations. But then again you can't use a tank round on personell but you can use it on equipment. Equipment could be the canteen or vest the person is wearing.

I think that there are other things going on that we don't know about any way. I'm sure our government is not completely stupid, and that they are taking some matters into their own hands in regards to psychological warfare, torture and the like.
 
I had to figure this was coming :rolleyes:

Look,
#1 Torture really does not work. If you torture somebody they will say whatever it is they think you want to hear in order to stop the pain/discomfort/mock execution.
Therefore any information you gain is questionable. Not to mention so out of date as to be tactically useless.

#2 The old 'they can behead our troops' saw. It would not be so much of a problem if we were only torturing known terrorists and insurgents, but our own reports indicate we're also torturing innocents. Which leads to

#3 (and this is the most important) Torture alienates the local populace from our efforts and is thus counterproductive. Our best source for intelligence has always been the locals, and when we turn them against us they start actively supporting the insurgency.
Any law enforcement types on this board know how the concept works in regard to the drug trade. If you harass the locals, they will start to warn the bad guys. If you treat the locals decently, they will come forward with info all on their own.

So setting aside all the arguments about morality, ethics, and what is technically legal or illegal, we're left with the most important argument:
When you are in a war, you do whatever has the greatest benefit for your mission and whatever is most detrimental to the enemy.
In this case it's *not* torture.
 
our own reports indicate we're also torturing innocents.

Where have you read about us torturing innocents?

Torture alienates the local populace

The only reason for this is our self-serving press. You have to know before you can be alienated. We should have declared war and censored the press. This also assumes that the locals have sympathies towards the insurgency/terrorists. More recently, they might prefer that we prevent a suicide bomber by getting timely information on operational planning.

Our best source for intelligence has always been the locals

It still is our best source.

If the above report is true, then I'm guessing that there is a good reason that we use these techniques. Why would we use them if they didn't provide useful information? Why would the CIA take the hit without reason? I doubt that anyone enjoys this sort of thing.
 
#1 Torture really does not work.
Nonsense. A skilled interrogator will mix in questions that they already know the answers to, to make sure the subject is answering truthfully.
It would not be so much of a problem if we were only torturing known terrorists and insurgents
I'm sure we're not wasting time interrogating random people picked up off the street.
Torture alienates the local populace from our efforts
Arab culture has a long and rich tradition of torture. I would say the opposite, they expect it, and see it as a sign of weakness if we didn't.
When you are in a war, you do whatever has the greatest benefit for your mission and whatever is most detrimental to the enemy.
In this war, intelligence is paramount. Harsh interrogation yields intelligence. It's that simple, and if we get all PC and touchy-feelie about it, we're tieing our hands behind our back.
 
When reporters say that "torture doesn't work," I think what they mean is that they're too stupid to figure out or learn how torture works. They might also mean that the average listener/reader wouldn't be able to conduct effective interrogations. But a few people know how, and if they're not running these interrogations, they should be.

Police also have to deal with false confessions. It's the same issue; although one is made under some sort of duress and the other isn't (usually), both still need to be validated. People make false confessions even when they're not tortured. Why is there no outcry when freely given confessions are used in court? All confessions need to be validated somehow.

Intelligence collection is just as tricky. The CIA has plenty of experience separating (or trying to) valid intelligence from garbage, thanks to the KGB. Intelligence given by tortured detainees might not be valid, but intelligence gotten by other means has the same problems. All intelligence needs to be validated somehow.

Waterboarding isn't even described properly, as I understand it. If cellophane were put over the prisoner's face, it'd be a breath-holding contest, and the incline would no longer serve a purpose other than general demoralization. Cellophane sounds trickier, too, since the prisoner could easily asphyxiate.
 
Wow...Declare martial law and trample the first amendment? Iraqis respect torture?
I'm not gonna argue this subject with you guys. I've said my piece.
 
Wow is right torturing innocents... That was a nice bomb to throw and have nothing to back it up GoSlash27.

Torture are you kidding? Why don't they ask the Saddam about torture interrogation. Oh yeah I didn't think the Geneva convention applied to terrorists? Seeing as how they have no uniform and don't represent any nation?
 
Torture alienates the local populace

So does women handling prisoners. Or certain people handling their holy books.

Loping off the heads of our servicemen taken prisoner angers me, but no one seems to care.
 
I have been subjected to techniques #1-5 at a school. They are meant to break down an individual to a point where other techniques will work. Simply relying on physical techniques is not enough. You must do your homework on what the guy may have access to, physical/pychological state, what you can use against him that will work and what will not, have control questions where the answers are already known, develop some type of repoir, and corroborate information given with available intel or leads to find out those answers. No interrogator takes given answers as the truth. They must be corroborated.
 
Okay then, one last time:

Nobody, least of all me, really cares how you feel about beheadings.
We are there to *deep breath*

WIN A WAR!!!

So what is the priority here? Are we after a few heads to avenge some barbaric behavior, or are we gonna fu*&in' do what we gotta do to complete the mission?
Sometimes you do things you don't like in order to defeat the enemy. Other times you don't do what you'd like to. Do you guys comprehend that?
In this case it means not pi$$ing off the locals and doing the job in a manner that lets them know we respect them. And we do this because it's those locals that are going to win or lose this war for us, not the detainees. The detainees have no information of value to us. It's the locals.
The detainees are of no use to the insurgents. It's the locals.


Apparently all you folks are into is a little payback. I hadn't realized that the main objective of this war was to give the bad guys a bath, play 'em a song, and smack their bellies. My bad.
I hope you've got your fill, 'cuz there's 2,000 Americans who came home in a box to bring it to you.
 
GoSlash:

Assuming that there is a basis to this story, why would the CIA use these techniques if they resulted in a net loss? They have had many years to evaluate the plus and minus of such activity. Your arguments make sense, but I suspect that they have obtained important information in this way. Why else would they take the hit?
 
We are not into "pay back". We are just sick and tired of the use of moral equivalency used to justify slaughter of our troops; surrender and fleeing from a fight like Nam. Focus on victory and know your enemy. Wrap them in pig skins or what ever will save American lives. The MSM will and has killed service men using your arguments to show just how PC they are to the world that will kill even them if it gets a chance. The real problem is virtually no one at this point realizes just what is at stake here and what kind of enemy were are forced to fight. Recently it was reported that our troops were ordered to NOT fire on armed “insurgents” unless they “fire first”. This is the SAME crap as Nam and will result in the same outcome. Only this time we will not be insulated by oceans when the MSM and government cut and run. They will come after us and not stop until we are no more or converted to Islam just as they say they will. No one beleaved Hitler and few in this country believe the Islamic Fascists because it is easer (for awhile) to stick their heads in the sand and hide. But hey, at least while they are killing us they will say good things about the media and the left. Right?
I don't care if they love us. But I love it when they fear us because thats what works in the mideast and has for 1000's of years. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top