Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Location:
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 110-849]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-849
U.S. INTERROGATION POLICY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13440
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-396 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER BOND, Missouri, Vice Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN WARNER, Virginia
RON WYDEN, Oregon CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
EVAN BAYH, Indiana SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio
----------
Andrew W. Johnson, Staff Director
Louis B. Tucker, Minority Staff Director
Kathleen P. McGhee, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
----------
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from
Missouri....................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Statement of Lieutenant General Charley Otstott, U.S. Army, Ret.. 2
Statement of Colonel Steven Kleinman, U.S. Air Force Reserve,
Educing Information Study Senior Advisor....................... 4
Statement of Allen S. Keller, M.D., Associate Professor of
Medicine, New York University School of Medicine; Director,
Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Member, Advisory
Council, Physicians For Human Rights........................... 9
Statement of Elisa Massimino, Washington Director, Human Rights
First.......................................................... 16
Statement of Professor Robert F. Turner, SJD, Center for National
Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law............. 37
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Prepeared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman, a
U.S. Senator from West Virginia................................ 1
Prepared Statement of Colonel Steven Kleinman.................... 6
Statement of Allen S. Keller..................................... 11
Prepared Statement of Elisa Massimino............................ 19
Prepared Statement of Professor Robert F. Turner................. 39
Statement of the American Psychological Association Concerning
Psychology and Interrogations.................................. 87
Statement of Rev. George Hunsinger on Behalf of the National
Religious Campaign Against Torture Concerning CIA Interrogation
Techniques..................................................... 91
U.S. INTERROGATION POLICY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13440
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 3:40 p.m., in
Room SH-219, Hart Senate Office Building, the Honorable
Christopher S. Bond (Vice Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Bond, Feinstein, and
Whitehouse.
Committee Staff Members Present: Andy Johnson, Staff
Director; Louis Tucker, Minority Staff Director; Michael
Davidson, General Counsel; Kathleen McGhee, Chief Clerk; Randy
Bookout, Eric Chapman, Tom Corcoran, John Dickas, Melvin Dubee,
Evan Gottesman, David Grannis, Andrew Kerr, Paul Matulic, Don
Mitchell, Eric Pelofsky, Mike Pevzner, Jacqueline Russell,
Michal Schafer, Alissa Starzak, Greg Thielmann, and Jim Wolfe.
Vice Chairman Bond [presiding]. This hearing will come to
order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, VICE CHAIRMAN, A
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Unfortunately, the Chairman has been called away for a very
important ceremony honoring his colleague in the Capitol, so,
without objection, his full opening statement will be entered
into the record.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman, a U.S.
Senator from West Virginia
We are now going to continue our discussion of interrogation in
today's second panel.
Although we very rarely hear from non-government witnesses, the
topic of interrogation poses legal and moral questions that require
public debate.
If we truly want to answer the question of what is in the best
interest of the country, we must ensure that we hear outside
perspectives on the impact of U.S. interrogation policies and
practices.
Our witnesses are well equipped to provide us that outside
perspective. Our panelists today have military and interrogation
experience, legal familiarity with international treaty obligations,
and experience treating patients exposed to the harsh interrogation
tactics of other countries. These witnesses can help us answer a
variety of unclassified questions on interrogation issues.
Our witnesses today can help us better understand the recent
Executive Order interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions. Is the Executive Order consistent with historical
interpretation of Common Article 3? Does it change the ``humane
treatment'' standard of Common Article 3 to permit treatment that we
would find unacceptable if used against an American solider? Will the
193 other countries that have signed on to the Geneva Conventions agree
with our interpretation of Common Article 3?
Our witnesses can also help us consider the practical impact of the
Executive Order. What does the Executive Order say about our commitment
to human rights and our international treaty obligations? How will it
affect our military personnel operating abroad?
Finally, our witnesses can help us consider prospective U.S.
policies. The need to obtain actionable intelligence from detainees is
unlikely to end in the near future. How do we go about conducting
interrogation if we want to ensure both that we obtain the intelligence
we need to protect the nation from attack and that we maintain our
moral standing in the world?
Although the Committee has agreed to conduct this second panel in
closed session, many of the witnesses for this panel do not have
clearances. Therefore, no classified information may be discussed
during this second session.
Because the Committee thinks it is important that the debate on
these important topics be made public, the Committee has made the
decision to post witness statements immediately following the hearing.
Once the hearing transcript from this second portion of the hearing is
completed and reviewed, the transcript will also be made part of the
public record.
I welcome our witnesses today for the second panel: Lieutenant
General Charley Otstott; Colonel Steven Kleinman; Dr. Allen Keller, the
Program Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture;
Elisa Massimino, the Washington Director of Human Rights First
Professor; and Robert Turner, from the University of Virginia Law
School's Center for National Security Law.
Vice Chairman Bond. It is important, I should note, that we
have previously agreed that although the Committee has agreed
to conduct this second panel in closed session, many of these
witnesses do not have clearances; therefore, to my Members and
staff, no classified information may be discussed during this
second session.
But, because the Committee thinks it's important that the
debate on these important topics be made public, the Committee
has made the decision to post witness statements immediately
following the hearing. Once the hearing transcript from the
second portion of the hearing is completed and reviewed to
assure no classified information, the transcript will also be
made part of the public record.
Today it's my pleasure on behalf of the Chairman to welcome
our witnesses for the second panel--Lieutenant General Charlie
Otstott, Colonel Steve Kleinman, Dr. Allan Keller, the program
director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture,
Elisa Massimino, the Washington Director, Human Rights First,
and Professor Robert Turner from the University of Virginia Law
School Center for National Security Law.
With that, I will now call upon General Otstott.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLEY OTSTOTT, U.S. ARMY,
RET.
General Otstott. Good afternoon, Senators, and thank you
for hosting us today. It's a pleasure to be here to provide my
personal views as a combat veteran on the topic of handling of
detainees.
I was commissioned in the infantry from West Point in 1960
and served 32 years in the Army. I served two combat tours in
Vietnam, first as an advisor to South Vietnamese infantry
battalions in 1964-1965 and then as a member of the 101st
Airborne Division as a rifle company commander and a battalion
operations officer in 1967 to 1968.
I was always guided by my understanding during that time of
the Geneva Conventions and by a clear ethical code that said
essentially treat detainees as you would wish them to treat
you. I followed this code even when I suspected the enemy might
not treat us the same way. But I believe that operating from
this position on the moral high ground gives our soldiers the
right to expect decent treatment if they are captured.
The language of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
provides a clear standard of treatment of detainees on the
battlefield. The Army has recently published a revised field
manual, following Abu Ghurayb, which further codifies the
proper handling and interrogation of detainees. In my view,
soldiers need clear guidance in the heat of combat. The new
field manual provides an easily understood standard, and the
Army has taken measures to correct the ambiguities that
probably contributed to the situation at Abu Ghurayb.
Some might claim the new field manual is too simplistic for
sophisticated interrogators, but the principles reflected in
the field manual are values that no U.S. agency should violate.
The FM provides a set of approaches to interrogation that
should be sufficient to guide even the most sophisticated
interrogator.
General Petraeus recently reinforced the field manual
standards in his letter to the troops of the Multinational
Force-Iraq on 10 May of this year, which condemned the abuse of
detainees. In the letter he says the following: ``We are indeed
warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in
combat. We pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be
violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this
fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must
observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat
noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect.''
So the military or the uniformed services are back on
track, trying to adhere to a simple, clear and understandable
standard for the treatment of detainees as found in the field
manual. Senior military leaders are now speaking out to make
sure that the standards are understood all the way down to the
lowest levels.
But the President's Executive Order of 20 July expresses an
interpretation of Common Article 3 which appears to provide a
different set of standards for the CIA in the handling and
interrogation of detainees. In my opinion, there are two
problems associated with this new Executive Order.
First, any techniques used by the CIA under this program
are essentially those which our soldiers could expect to have
used against them if they fall into enemy hands. Admiral
McConnell, in speaking publicly about the Executive Order and
the CIA program, admitted that he ``would not want a U.S.
citizen to go through the processes'' that are allowed under
this order.
Second, the Order reintroduces ambiguity into situations
where CIA and U.S. military personnel are working side by side,
as in many locales within Iraq today. The existence of
different standards does not work well in practice and provides
a confusion factor which detracts from clear guidance and
simple standards. This confusion can lead to the disgraceful
behavior which we saw earlier in the current conflict.
I conclude by urging you to do all within your power,
Senators, to maintain the integrity of Common Article 3 and to
provide a single, clear standard of behavior for all U.S.
personnel engaged in this and future conflicts.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you very much, General. Now we
turn to Colonel Kleinman.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL STEVEN KLEINMAN, U.S. AIR FORCE RESERVE,
EDUCING INFORMATION STUDY SENIOR ADVISOR
Colonel Kleinman. Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the
Committee, it's truly an honor to be here today and share my
thoughts on this very important issue.
My background, over 20 years of commissioned service,
focused primarily on human intelligence operations, much of
that involving interrogations, including three military
campaigns--in Panama, first Gulf War and, most recently, in
Iraqi Freedom. In addition, I was the DOD's senior intelligence
officer for special survival training. What that means is I was
also an expert on the counter-strategies to resist
interrogation, one of the few people, fortunately enough, who
have actually worked on both sides of the table, so to speak.
Senator Feinstein. Did you say ``fortunate'' or
``unfortunate?''
Colonel Kleinman. I will say fortunate, very fortunate.
This background will indelibly inform the perspectives that
I want to share with you today, as I was asked to address three
primary areas--historical U.S. practices, the effectiveness of
various interrogation approaches, and, finally, challenges
faced by the United States as we move forward.
As a student at the Defense Intelligence College, I wrote a
thesis on the U.S. interrogation program during World War II,
and I began that thesis with a quote from a British officer who
worked in a counterpart program. He said, ``Interrogation of
prisoners is a difficult and delicate task that cannot be
conducted by anybody anywhere, by no matter what method. It is
indispensable if results of any value are to be obtained, that
the examination be conducted in a skilled, planned, and
methodical manner.''
The U.S. program I studied, known as MIS-Y, clearly took
that guidance to heart. Operating without established doctrine,
these very creative and dynamic individuals serving as
interrogators, as analysts and as monitors, developed an
incredibly effective program, the product of which would soon
be on par with the vaunted communication intercepts of the
ENIGMA program.
The lessons I learned in my studies are these. Number one,
interrogation is a complex, dynamic process that is as
operationally vexing as any clandestine operation. MIS-Y
responded to the challenge by recruiting a cadre of individuals
with impressive academic credentials, such successful life
experience, with knowledge of the language and culture and an
ability to produce results in an ambiguous and chaotic
environment.
Secondly, to maximize the return on their investment, they
selected only those prisoners that they knew to possess
information of critical intelligence value. That process of
selection was both judicious and meticulous. The exhaustive
research that went into the effort before every interrogation
was amazing. The standard became three to six hours of
preparation for every hour actually spent in interrogation.
Unfortunately, due to the time when we transitioned rapidly
from World War II into the era of the cold war, much of this
information, the corporate knowledge from MIS-Y, was classified
and remained unavailable to inform the stories that unfolded
during subsequent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and in the Gulf.
So those chapters were not informed by the previous and very
successful chapter.
Moving on to effectiveness, most of the debate surrounding
the topic of interrogation has focused on this question.
Interrogation is, at its best, an art and a science, probably
more the former than the latter, and certainly effectiveness
falls into that. While the U.S. government invested an
extraordinary amount of time and money into studying what we
used to call the communist interrogation model during the
fifties, sixties and seventies, very little time was spent
studying interrogation--meaning the collection of intelligence
information from sources who might possess that intelligence.
The intent was honorable. If we could deconstruct that
model, perhaps we could identify counter-strategies to resist
it. Unfortunately, we spent very little time studying the
interrogation for intelligence gathering purposes, and I would
state for you today that most of the approaches, most of the
strategies, in fact the paradigm behind the current Army field
manual is not based on scientific inquiry. It is, at best--and
I've done my research in the archives--it is, at best, based on
a collection of lessons learned assembled after World War II.
The trail backward from the present disappears in 1950 but has
nonetheless been codified in each successive iteration. So what
we know about ``pride and ego-up'' and ``emotional love of
country,'' and ``we know all'', is essentially speculation.
In the limited time I have I wanted to turn very briefly to
the concept of ``effectiveness'' as it might apply to the use
of coercion. The debate around the employment of coercive
methods seems to center exclusively on the legal and moral
elements rather than the idea of what might be operationally
effective. There seems to be a presupposition that coercion
does work. It's just a question of should we, as a nation, use
it.
I submit that I have not seen--and I believe I can say that
I've studied this issue at length--any definitive studies that
would prove that coercive methods are at all useful in
consistently producing valid intelligence information. Please
recall that the whole purpose of interrogation is to have
access to somebody's accurate, timely and comprehensive memory.
A literature review on the psychology of eye- witness testimony
will immediately raise important questions about the impact of
stress on memory.
I will just quickly press on to the conclusions. We need to
understand both the art and science, and that will require a
meaningful plan to conduct more research.
We need to develop, I believe, like MIS-Y, an entity of
common concern for the intelligence community that would
address this research and ultimately put that research into
effect, setting standards to truly professionalize this
discipline, with all that this implies. In doing so, I think we
can still meet the serious operational challenges we face, both
those we encounter today and those that might emerge in a
different paradigm in the future, and do so in a way that I
think our country may think is impossible--that is, to conduct
our affairs in a way that is truly good, thereby sending the
message to the world that we are country that wishes to be
truly great.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Col. Kleinman follows:]
Prepeared Statement of Colonel Steven Kleinman
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, members of the Committee, I would
like to thank-you for the wonderful opportunity to testify at this
hearing on interrogation policy.
In the course of my more than twenty years of military service, I
have had the great fortune to have been involved in the design,
management, and conduct of the full spectrum of human intelligence
operations. This experience has included service as an interrogator
during three major military campaigns: Operation JUST CAUSE, Operations
DESERT SHIELD/STORM, and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. I also was entrusted
with directing the Air Force Combat Interrogation Course during which
we provided a unique training program for interrogators from all the
services as well as several foreign countries. Reflecting upon these
experiences today, I can assure you that never could I have imagined
one day having the honor of appearing before this august body with what
is almost certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to share my
observations, insights, and recommendations.
I have been asked to focus my remarks on three primary areas: 1)
historical U.S. interrogation practices, 2) the effectiveness of
various interrogation approaches, and 3) the challenges faced by the
United States in developing an effective interrogation program. I'll
begin, then, by addressing each of these issues before offering several
concluding thoughts.
Historical U.S. Interrogation Practices
As a student in the graduate program in strategic intelligence at
the National Defense Intelligence College, I began my thesis on the
U.S. strategic interrogation program during World War II with a quote
from a British officer who had served in the United Kingdom's Combined
Services Detailed Interrogation Center, an extraordinary program that
would became the model for our own. I believe Flying Officer S.D.
Felkin eloquently captured the intrinsic nature of interrogation when
he observed:
``Interrogation of prisoners is a difficult and delicate task
that cannot be conducted by anybody, anywhere and by no matter
what method. It is indispensable, if results of any value are
to be produced, that the examination be conducted in a skilled,
planned and methodical manner.''
The U.S. program that I studied in depth, conducted under the
auspices of the Military Intelligence Service and referred to simply as
MIS-Y, clearly took this guidance to heart. Operating without
previously established doctrine, the dynamic and creative individuals
who served as interrogators, analysts, and monitors developed an
incredibly effective program, the product of which would soon be valued
on par with the decisive intelligence generated by the vaunted Enigma
communications intercept program.
The lessons I uncovered in my research\1\ would, I believe, be of
significant value in informing the American approach to interrogation
in this contemporary era.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A summary of my thesis has been made available to the
committee's counsel.
Interrogation is a complex, dynamic process that is as
operationally vexing as any clandestine intelligence operation. MIS-Y
responded to the challenge by recruiting a cadre of individuals with
impressive academic credentials, successful life experience, knowledge
of the language and culture, and adept at producing results in an
environment marked by chaos and ambiguity.
To maximize the return on investment, only those
prisoners with access to, and knowledge of, information of critical
intelligence value were ultimately selected for long-term examination
at the Fort Hunt Facility. The multi-tiered selection process that
developed can be described as both meticulous and judicious.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A total of 3,451of prisoners-of-war passed through Fort Hunt
from August 1942 to July 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaustive research and preparation prior to the conduct
of every interrogation was standard. As the process evolved, three to
six hours were invested in preparation for every hour spent in the
actual interrogation. Interrogator--and interrogation teams--became
bona fide subject matter experts in the array of specialized and
technical areas of intelligence interest.
Unfortunately, due to the prevailing national security interests
that unfolded as the nation rapidly transitioned from World War II into
the era of the Cold War, much of the corporate knowledge developed by
the MIS-Y effort remained classified and largely unavailable until this
treasure was once again declassified in the early 1990s. As a result,
the stories of the American interrogation programs that emerged during
subsequent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf did so without the
benefit of this extraordinary preceding chapter.
Effectiveness of Various Interrogation Approaches
Much of the debate surrounding the topic of interrogation in recent
times has focused on this very question. I think it would be safe to
say that in viewing interrogation as both an art and a science, the
discussion of effectiveness falls primarily within the province of the
former. While the U.S. Government invested in the study of
interrogation during the 1950s through the 1970s, those programs almost
exclusively examined the intricacies of what was once labeled the
Communist Interrogation Model. The initial intent, I would submit was
honorable: if we could deconstruct the nature of this coercive model,
perhaps we could identify effective counter-strategies and therefore
better prepare Americans going in harm's way who might find themselves
detained by nations that did not conduct their affairs in a manner
consistent with the Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of
prisoners.
Unfortunately, there was little interest in studying the nature of
interrogation as a unique method of collecting critical intelligence
information from foreign nationals detained by the United States. As a
result, the interrogation strategies set forth in the current Army
Field Manual are not based on scientific inquiry. Immersing myself in
the archives, my best guess is that they are derived from lessons
learned from tactical interrogations conducted during World War II.
Those lessons--captured in such strategies as Pride & Ego Up, Rapid
Fire, and We Know All--have since been codified into the various
iterations of the Field Manual.
Arguments for or against the effectiveness of this paradigm are
based almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence. The fact that
Specialist Jones orchestrated the Emotional Love of Family approach and
obtained information of intelligence is too often viewed as prima
fascia evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy. Factors such as
the interrogator's presence or personality, the physical setting, and
the events experienced by the prisoner prior to interrogation lay
beyond our ability to thus far measure.
While I have observed effective interrogations--and would like to
think I've been effective in the course of the interrogations I've
conducted--the only conclusion I can state that would meet the
standards of scientific rigor is this: we don't know if the methods we
are employing are effective, nor do we know for certain what other
strategies or methods might be more effective than what we are teaching
today.
That said, the sum total of my experience suggests that the most
effective means of conducting interrogations--and by effective, I mean
achieving consistent success in obtaining accurate, comprehensive, and
timely information--is through what has been frequently described as a
``relationship-based'' model. Let me emphasize that this is far more
than just establishing rapport; it involves the pursuit of operational
accord. Employing non-threatening principles of persuasion and
enlightened cultural finesse, the interrogator seeks to establish a
productive, non-adversarial relationship wherein the source perceives
his interests to be best served by engaging cooperatively with the
interrogator. To borrow from negotiation theory, this involves
fostering strategies rather than forcing strategies.
Since issues relating to coercion and torture continue to occupy
centerstage in the public debate over this country's interrogation
policy, I think it would show lack of courage on my part to sidestep
this issue completely. I continue to be amazed that in the debate
involving the so-called ``ticking bomb'' scenario, there appears to be
a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional
coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence with
the parties focusing only on the legal and moral arguments in favor or
in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data
to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to
suggest the contrary.
I find that even the effort to define torture to be an elusive game
at best. The problem lies in the fact that interrogations are conducted
in the theater of reality, not a virtual world of words. From this
operator's perspective, I find myself in full agreement with the
observations of author Mark Moyar as set forth in his book, Phoenix and
the Birds of Prey, a well-researched account of the Vietnam-era Phoenix
Program.
Some people define torture as the infliction of severe physical
pain on a defenseless person. I define torture as the
infliction of any pain on a defenseless individual because
deciding which activities inflict severe pain is an excessively
complicated and imprecise business.
Challenges Faced by the United States in Developing an Effective
Interrogation Program
It is this professional's opinion that the challenges before us--
what I have described in my writings as barriers to success--are
threefold:
The first is the linguistic/cultural barrier to success. The
interrogator's ability to engage with a source with near-native fluency
and acute cultural awareness is of vital importance. Distilled to its
most fundamental form, interrogation is about information and
relationships, with language and cultural intelligence serving as the
primary instruments.
The second is the specialized knowledge barrier to success. Most
experts agree that the both counterterrorism and counterinsurgency are
intelligence-driven activities. In this regard, interrogation moves
from the margins to play a central role in intelligence collection. As
an example, General Hayden recently noted that more than 70 percent of
the human intelligence used in the National Intelligence Estimate
pertaining to threats to homeland security was based on information
obtained from detainees.
The nature of the information required in these realms, however, is
profoundly different from that sought in a conventional Battlespace.
Rather than order of battle and lines of communications, interrogators
need a detailed understanding of arcane finance structures, amorphous
cell networks, and communications systems brought forward from
antiquity. As with the cultural barrier to success, the specialized
knowledge barrier to success is predicated on Sun Tzu's timeless
exhortation to know the enemy.
Finally, there is what I've labeled the interpersonal barrier to
success. The advent of the behavioral science consulting team concept
resulted from a recognition that interrogation is an intense
interpersonal dynamic bounded by complex informational and relational
factors. Thus far, however, behavioral science consulting teams have
been primarily comprised of clinical psychologists. To effectively
overcome the myriad interpersonal challenges, the interrogator's
methods should be informed by the full array of sound behavioral
science, including at a minimum, such disciplines as social psychology
and cultural anthropology.
Conclusions
It is likely evident from my foregoing remarks that I believe we
have challenges before us in evolving the American way of
interrogation. These challenges, however, are not unlike those facing
the United States in 1942. In recommending a way forward, then, I rely
in part upon the lessons I learned in studying the MIS-Y experience.
Leaders at that time identified four key areas of emphasis to ensure
mission success.
First, they needed to design an in-depth training program that
transcended what was being taught in the basic interrogation courses.
Today, this would require a comprehensive research effort and the
systematic study of our interrogators who have demonstrated an ability
to achieve consistent results.
Second, they would require an innovative and adaptable approach to
interrogation. The prisoners they faced were often well-educated,
conversant in several languages, and moved easily across cultures. This
also describes many of the high-value detainees we have encountered. A
more sophisticated strategic model mandates a more sophisticated
approach to research.
Third, they needed to create a function-driven organization. I
believe the Intelligence Community would be well-served by the creation
of an organization of common concern vested with the responsibility for
professionalizing the discipline of interrogation, managing a robust
approach to studying the ``science'' of interrogation, and designing
doctrine for incorporating the products of that research into field
operations.
And forth, they needed to establish a facility built to precise
standards driven by operational requirements. To appreciate the
importance of this step, one only need to reflect back upon the early
difficulties experienced at the Guantanamo Bay facility.
My operational experience has convinced me that these four steps
can be taken in a manner that meets the spirit and even the most
stringent interpretation of national and international law relative to
the treatment of prisoners. Perhaps of more importance, I am equally
convinced this course will enable us to meet current and emerging
threats in a fashion consistent with the best moral traditions of this
nation.
In this way, I am confident that we would be able to what some of
our countrymen have come to believe is impossible: to conduct our
operations in a manner that demonstrates to all that we are truly good,
so that we might, as a nation, embrace our desire to be truly great.
Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you very much, Colonel Kleinman.
Now we'll turn to Dr. Keller.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN S. KELLER, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE; DIRECTOR, BELLEVUE/NYU PROGRAM FOR SURVIVORS OF
TORTURE; MEMBER, ADVISORY COUNCIL,
PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Dr. Keller. Thank you.
Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this
Committee today. I'm testifying on behalf of the Bellevue/NYU
Program for Survivors of Torture, as well as Physicians for
Human Rights.
I want to share with you my perspective as a physician
concerning torture and interrogation practices. Mine is not a
theoretical one. It's based on more than fifteen years of
experience in caring for more than 2000 men, women and children
from all over the world who have experienced torture and
mistreatment, and studying the health consequences.
The focus of my comments is on the profound and dangerous
health effects of torture and interrogation techniques, often
referred to in the seemingly innocuous way of ``enhanced
interrogation techniques.'' I know you are all familiar with
the list of these techniques. In my written testimony I have
discussed several of them. I would be happy to answer
questions. It is crucial that you understand from a medical,
scientific and health perspective that there is nothing,
nothing benign about these methods.
If you take one thing away from what I say today, let it be
that you know that these methods are dehumanizing, they are
traumatizing, they are dangerous, and they have horrific health
consequences. I've treated traumatized and damaged individuals
who were subjected to every one of these techniques. Many forms
of torture and abuse, including the enhanced interrogation
techniques, may leave no physical scars but can nonetheless
cause severe physical and psychological suffering. If a gun is
held to someone's head and the trigger pulled in a mock
execution, there may be no physical marks, but the nightmares,
the terror, the fears can last a lifetime. Stress positions can
kill you. I have patients who were nearly killed or still
suffer, years after, from being forced to stand for extended
periods and likewise suffer the psychological impact of what
they endured.
It's also important to note that any one form of torture or
mistreatment rarely occurs in isolation but in combination with
several abusive methods, and the context is also critical.
There's a profound difference between the student pulling an
all-nighter, the young physician who is on call every third
night versus the detainee who is kept up for long periods who
has no sense of when that mistreatment will end and rightfully
fears for their life.
Such methods are potentially harmful even to individuals
who were healthy before. When used with individuals who have
underlying psychological or medical problems such as heart
disease or high blood pressure, they can be life-threatening by
causing heart attacks or strokes.
Now while the health consequences are clear, it's dubious
at best that such methods elicit accurate information. I know
from the victims I have cared for that they've told me that
they would say whatever they thought needed to be said, whether
it was true or not, to make these methods and this brutality
stop. But there must be no mistake about the brutality of these
enhanced interrogation techniques and no mistake about their
health consequences.
Let me just focus on two examples--first of all, stress
positions and standing. There has been much discussion from
individuals, saying, well, I stand for 18 hours a day while
working. Let me tell you there is a profound difference between
that and an individual forced to stand in one position for that
period. I have a Tibetan monk who I've cared for, an individual
who was arrested and mistreated for promoting freedom in Tibet,
and as a result of his actions/activities, he was forced to
stand and was beaten. He developed deep vein thromboses, clots
in the lower extremities that migrated up to his lungs. When I
saw him, he could barely breathe. He almost died. If not for
life- saving surgery, in fact, he would have died.
Sensory deprivation, such as being held in a dark cell or
hooded results in disorientation, profound panic, and an
adrenergic surge, a release of catecholamines that make you
have heart palpitations and horrible fear.
I have individuals who I've cared for years afterwards who
remain claustrophobic and terrified of the dark, and these
aren't individuals who were weak before they suffered this
abuse. They were often high-functioning individuals who years
later tragically are shells of who they were.
I was asked to say a few words about the medical ethics of
physician and health professional participation in
interrogation. Let me just say this. First, it is a gross
breach of professional ethics for health professionals to
participate in torture in any way or countenance or condone
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Regarding interrogations, most major medical organizations
have stated that it is a violation for health professionals to
participate in any way. I'm also concerned as a health
professional that if we as a nation in any way condone these
methods, we are pouring kerosene on what is already a worldwide
public health epidemic of torture and mistreatment.
So, in conclusion, I would say, as a physician and
scientist who has spent much of his career evaluating and
caring for torture victims, I want to clearly state that these
methods are cruel, inhuman and have horrific health
consequences. I urge you to ensure that there is transparency,
because that's the most effective means for stopping and
preventing torture and to ensure that these methods are not
allowed to be used on our watch.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Keller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allen S. Keller
Thank you for the privilege of testifying before this committee
today. I am testifying on behalf of the Bellevue/NYU Program for
Survivors of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights. As a physician, I
want to share with you my perspective on torture and abusive
interrogation practices. My perspective is not a theoretical one. It is
based on more than 15 years of experience in evaluating and caring for
victims of torture and mistreatment from around the world, and studying
the health consequences of such trauma. I will also address the ethical
restrictions for health professionals regarding interrogations as well
as the impact of U.S. policies on torture and mistreatment worldwide.
The focus of my comments are on the profound and dangerous health
consequences of torture and interrogation techniques, often referred to
as seemingly benign ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' While the
full spectrum of such techniques used by U.S. authorities including the
Central Intelligence Agency has not been disclosed, there have been
reports that the ``enhanced'' interrogation program includes methods
such as stress positions, shaking and beating, temperature
manipulation, threats of harm to person or loved ones, prolonged
isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory overload, sensory deprivation,
sexual humiliation, exploitation of fears and phobias, cultural or
religious humiliation, and water-boarding. From a medical, scientific
and health perspective, there is nothing benign about them. Such
techniques are gruesome, dehumanizing and dangerous. Noted one torture
victim I cared for: ``As someone who has experienced torture, I know
these things are torture.'' And in fact based on the medical evidence
he is correct. Clinical experience and data from the medical literature
are clear and unequivocal. These techniques can cause significant and
long lasting psychological and often physical pain and harm.
Furthermore, these methods have been implicated in the deaths of
several detainees in U.S. Custody since the tragic events of September
11, 2001.
I urge the Committee to conduct a full investigation into the use
of these techniques; ensure transparency with regards to what
interrogation techniques are used, given that transparency is crucial
in preventing torture and abusive interrogation techniques; and ensure
that torture and abusive interrogation techniques such as those cited
above are prohibited.
I am an Associate Professor of Medicine at New York University
School of Medicine. I am Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for
Survivors of Torture in New York City and the NYU School of Medicine
Center for Health and Human Rights. Since our Program began in 1995, we
have cared for over 2,000 men, women and children from more than 80
countries. Our Program is a member of the National Consortium of
Treatment Programs (NCTTP) whose approximately 30 member organizations
care for torture victims in more than 20 states across the United
States. Additionally we are members of the International Rehabilitation
Council of Torture Victims (IRCT) which includes more than 130 torture
rehabilitation centers and programs worldwide. Individuals cared for in
the Bellevue/NYU program have been persecuted for daring to question
ruling powers; for expressing religious beliefs; or simply because of
their race or ethnicity.
Additionally, I am co-chair of the Bellevue Hospital Bioethics
Committee and oversee bioethics education at NYU School of Medicine. I
have also served as a member of the American College of Physicians
Ethics and Human Rights Committee.
I am a member of the Advisory Council of Physicians for Human
Rights (PHR). I have participated in PHR's asylum network examining
victims of torture and mistreatment applying for political asylum here
in the United States. I have also participated in several PHR
investigations and studies documenting torture and mistreatment, and
training health professionals in conducting such documentation. I
served as an advisor and reviewer for the recent report from PHR and
Human Rights First ``Leave No Marks.'' This report documents the
harmful health impact of enhanced interrogation techniques and the risk
of criminality. In my testimony today, I draw on my own clinical and
research experience, including evaluation of several former U.S.
detainees, as well as information presented in the PHR report and data
from the medical literature.
In my work with torture victims, I have seen the scars from
shackles, the marks from cigarette bums inflicted during interrogation
and the wounds and broken bones from severe beatings. I have listened
to stories of shame and humiliation from individuals raped or sexually
humiliated, of haunting nightmares, and memories that will not go away.
One patient of mine, for example, who was repeatedly submerged in a vat
of water while being interrogated, years later still felt as if he was
gasping for air whenever he showered or went out in the rain.
Torture can have devastating health consequences on the victim's
physical, mental and social well being. Severe beatings or being
restrained in painful positions can result in bruises, broken bones,
severe and chronic pain including joint and muscle pain. Neurological
symptoms including headaches, dizziness, hearing loss and loss of
sensation are also common. Burns from cigarettes, beatings with whips
or sticks can result in scars.
Many forms of torture and abuse, including the enhanced
interrogation techniques, may leave no physical scars but can
nonetheless cause severe physical and psychological suffering. For
example, if someone is forced to witness the rape or torture of a
family member, or subjected to the sexual humiliation of forced
nakedness, or a gun is held to their head and the trigger pulled in a
mock execution, there may be no physical scars, but the nightmares, the
terrors can persist for years after the trauma. One patient of mine
while being interrogated had a gun pointed at his head which was
abruptly pulled away and shot into the air. He told me ``Until now I
still hear the sound of the gun in my brain. This psychological torture
is encrusted in my brain.''
According to one recent study published in the medical literature,
the significance of harm caused by non-physical psychological abuse is
virtually identical to the significance of the harm caused by physical
abuse. In a study conducted by our own program, we found that
psychological symptoms were significantly higher among those who
experienced death threats.
Psychological distress is alarmingly common among survivors of
torture and trauma. This includes posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
manifested by recurrent terrifying memories and nightmares and profound
social impairment; as well as depression manifested by extreme feelings
of sadness and hopelessness, including suicidal thoughts. Severe and
chronic sleep difficulties are also signs of both depression and PTSD
and common sequellae of torture and abuse. Extreme stress results in a
physiologic response that involves release of stress hormones, such as
cortisol, that have immediate effects on cardiac function, and blood
pressure and may even have long lasting effects on insulin resistance
and immune function.
The physical, psychological and social dimensions of health are
interdependent. For example, an individual who was severely beaten may
experience musculoskeletal pain. The recurring pain may trigger
significant psychological symptoms, such as intrusive thoughts of the
trauma. Because of these symptoms, the individual may be socially
isolated, withdrawn and distrustful of society. Torture also impacts on
the health of the community through fear and intimidation, which can
become pervasive.
It is important to note that any one form of torture or
mistreatment rarely occurs in isolation, but in combination with
several abusive methods. The harm caused by the combination is greater
than the additive effect of individual techniques. Prolonged isolation,
for example, combined with sleep deprivation, exposure to loud noises,
and exposure to cold, compound their devastating psychological impact.
Furthermore the potential of these techniques to cause harm is
intimately related to the context and setting in which they are used.
Settings are designed to maximize the detainee's sense of loss of
autonomy and control and complete vulnerability to the interrogator.
Fear of harm or even death is real, not imagined. Cultural and
religious humiliations, and language barriers heighten stress.
Such methods are potentially harmful to even individuals who were
previously healthy. When used with individuals who have underlying
psychological or medical problems, such as heart disease which may or
may not be known, they can be potentially lethal for example by causing
heart attacks or strokes.
To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation
techniques, are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well
established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods
are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause
harm to their psyche, and in so doing result in lasting harmful health
consequences.
While the health consequences of these methods are clear, it is
dubious at best, that such brutal methods elicit accurate information.
I know from the torture victims I have cared for that individuals so
brutalized will often say whatever they think their interrogator wants
to hear in order to stop the torture. Noted one torture victim I cared
for: ``I would say anything to stop the torture. Even if what I was
saying was not true. I would say what ever they wanted to hear to make
them stop.''
There must be no mistake about the brutality of the stress and
duress ``enhanced interrogation methods'' and that the harmful medical
consequences, both physical and psychological, of such coercive methods
can be long lasting and severe. Each tactic, by itself or in
combination has the potential to cause significant harm. These methods
should be called for what they are: torture. Let me give some examples:
Sleep Deprivation
Prolonged periods of sleep deprivation can result in confusion and
psychosis-delusions and paranoia--clearly not predictors for eliciting
accurate information. Physical symptoms include headaches and dizziness
and chronic disruptions of normal sleep patterns. One patient of mine
who in his country of origin was kept in a prison cell with bright
lights and loud noises described the following. ``The absence of sleep
made me feel so sick. I felt dizzy. I had headaches. It affected my
mind. I had trouble in my mind I felt like I was going crazy.'' Sleep
deprivation also weakens the immune system and deprives vital organs of
needed time to repair damage inflicted to the body.
Stress Positions
Restraining persons for extended periods, keeping individuals in
painful positions can lead to significant and potentially long-term
musculoskeletal pain as well as torn ligaments and other injuries and
disabilities. Forcing individuals to stand for prolonged periods
results in pooling of the blood and painful swelling of the lower
extremities. It may result in blood clots in the legs (deep vein
thromboses), which can subsequently travel to the lungs as pulmonary
embolism--a potentially life threatening condition. Individuals forced
to stand for extended periods are also more likely to faint and
collapse, resulting in head trauma.
One patient of mine, a woman who was a professor at a university in
her African country was arrested there for criticizing the ruling
party. She was beaten, sexually assaulted and forced to stand naked.
She described how her captors mocked and laughed at her while she stood
there. They refused her access to a toilet and she subsequently
urinated on herself. Unable to stand any longer she fell to the ground,
but was forced to stand up again. As a result of her abuse she suffered
chronic deep vein thromboses in both of her legs, which caused painful
swelling, and required anticoagulation medication for several years
following her abuse. Another patient of mine--a Tibetan monk, arrested
after working to promote freedom in Tibet-- suffered deep vein
thromboses and subsequently pulmonary embolism as a result of prolonged
standings and beatings. At the time I initially evaluated him he could
barely breathe from the pulmonary embolism and nearly died. Several
deaths of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan are believed
to have resulted directly from the use of stress positions, according
to an analysis of coroners' reports.
Sensory Deprivation
Sensory deprivation, such as being held for prolonged periods in a
dark cell or hooding can result in disorientation, severe anxiety and
long term psychological damage, particularly when combined with mock
execution or other psychological methods. Years after being held in
isolation in small dark cells, patients of mine describe experiencing
profound nervousness particularly in the dark or in enclosed spaces.
This is not because they were weak persons. To the contrary, they were
commonly individuals who prior to their abuse were high functioning,
strong and self-confident.
Violent Shaking
Shaking can result in intracranial hemorrhages (bleeding of the
brain), cerebral edema (swelling of the brain), resulting in increased
intracranial pressure and permanent neurological deficits including
cognitive impairments and/or death.
Sensory Overload
Sensory bombardment with light and noise can inflict extreme mental
and physical harm whether it is used as a discrete interrogation tool
or to disrupt sleep. These methods are intended to cause physiologic
distress and disorientation. The body interprets such over-stimulation
as danger signals, and an adrenergic response ensues with the release
of stress hormones, which result in increased heart rate, increased
blood pressure. This can potentially increase the risk of life
threatening conditions such as myocardial infarctions (heart attacks).
Exposure to loud noises can result in chronic decreased hearing
loss or even deafness or chronic tinnitus (ringing in the ears). Many
of the patients I have cared for continue to suffer from poor hearing,
tinnitus, and the sense that ``the noise is still in their head.''
Exposure to Extreme Cold or Heat
Subjecting a prisoner to extremes of temperature clearly can cause
enormous physical discomfort and suffering. The body is highly
regulated to maintain core body temperature within a narrow range which
is essential for human survival. Thus prolonged exposure to either
extremes of cold or heat is potentially life threatening resulting in
hypothermia or hyperthermia.
Exposure to cold for example, by being placed in a room where it is
very cold or forced to stand outside naked in the cold, and having cold
water thrown on you, can have harmful consequences even if the
environmental temperature is well above freezing. Even moderate cold
exposure can lead to significant shifts from peripheral circulation--
the body's way of maintaining core body temperature. This in turn can
result in life threatening cardiac arrythmias, slowing of
gastrointestinal functioning and possible decreased resistance to
infection, and neurologic and cognitive impairments. Such methods
conjure memories of the infamous hypothermia experiments conducted by
the Nazis where concentration camp prisoners were immersed in vats of
cold water from which many died.
Exposure to heat can result in dehydration, delirium,
unconsciousness, and heat stroke--a life threatening condition. One
patient of mine who was held in an overcrowded prison cell which was
extremely hot and had bright lights described to me how dehydrated,
weak and confused he became. He described how his skin became dry,
cracked and even changed color ``like a snake.'' Many of his fellow
cellmates fared even worse. ``People died in my arms,'' he told me.
Sexual Humiliation
Forced nakedness and sexual humiliations, such as being forced to
perform sexually humiliating or embarrassing acts; being naked in front
of members of the opposite sex; sexual touching or insults or
threatening with rape; result in feelings of shame, guilt and
worthlessness. Witnessing others subjected to this can be extremely
traumatizing as well. While many individuals I have evaluated who were
subjected to sexual humiliations were raped and sodomized, even those
who were not, commonly feared this would happen to them.
Individuals whom I have evaluated, including those formerly
detained in U.S. custody, subjected to sexual humiliations commonly
described how utterly helpless, terrified and degraded they felt by
such acts which destroyed their sense of dignity and self-confidence.
Many of these victims shared their strong belief that such sexual
humiliation was far worse than any beatings they may have experienced,
and years later are haunted by shameful memories, nightmares, and loss
of libido (decreased sexual functioning). While sexual humiliations are
potentially traumatizing in all cultures, in certain cultures their
impact may be even more traumatizing.
Water-boarding
Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an
inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a
terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-
term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror
of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and
psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response,
manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath.
There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a
heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term
effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the
patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath
whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
Beatings
Beatings can clearly result in serious bruises, soft tissue
injuries, acute and chronic pain and broken bones and death. Slapping
with an open hand can result in serious injury, for example when an
individual is hit in a particularly vulnerable area such as the face.
Neck injuries from an ``attention slap'' to the face where the head
suddenly jolts back is predictable. I have cared for many individuals
with chronic visual problems as a result of being struck on the face.
Individuals subjected to beatings are also at risk of significant
psychological symptoms including depression and PTSD.
The combination of beating and stress positions has been implicated
in at least two deaths of U.S. detainees. The use of beating in U.S.
interrogation of detainees has often been called more benign names such
as the ``attention'' slap or ``attention grab,'' Such forms of beatings
can potentially cause significant injuries and harm.
Threats of Harm to Person, Family, or Friends
It is well known through clinical experience and documented in the
medical literature that threats to an individual's life or physical
well-being or to the well-being of his family or friends can have
profoundly harmful and long-lasting psychological impact. Such threats
result in extreme fear and helplessness which are strongly associated
with PTSD and major depression among trauma survivors.
Many of my patients I have evaluated have described how such
threats and the anticipation of such harm were psychologically
devastating. Individual's have told me that even worse than their own
torture was the feelings of guilt and helplessness from witnessing
friends and loved ones tortured or that they might be subjected to such
cruelty.
Exploitation of Fears and Phobias
Exploitation of fears and phobias, such as exposure to animals
intended to terrify individuals can be psychologically traumatizing.
For example, one Iraqi former Abu Ghraib detainee whom I evaluated,
described being threatened with dogs. ``I would hear the dog barking
very close. Sometimes they would take (my) hood off so I could see the
dog approaching.''
Medical Ethics and Interrogations
It is a gross breach of professional ethics for health
professionals in any way to countenance, condone or participate in the
practice of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment of prisoners. This has been clearly stated by major health
professional organizations including the American Medical Association,
the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric and
Psychological Associations, and the World Medical Association.
Furthermore a health professional who becomes aware of abusive or
coercive practices has a duty to report such practices to appropriate
authorities. The American Psychological Association has specifically
banned its members from participation in the tactics that allegedly
make up the CIA's ``enhanced'' interrogation program.
Regarding interrogations, all of these organizations, with the
exception of the American Psychological Association, have stated it is
a violation for health professional to participate in interrogations in
any way, including medical monitoring of the subject. The basis for
this is that a dual role as health professional-interrogator undermines
the health professional's role as healer, and thereby erodes trust in
the health professionals and their profession. Furthermore, exploiting,
sharing or using medical information from any source for interrogation
purposes is unethical.
Throughout the 20th century, human rights groups have seen a clear
pattern amongst governments that torture of co-opting the expertise,
credibility and perceived neutrality of the medical profession to
legitimize the use of many of the tactics in the CIA's ``enhanced''
interrogation program. Sadly, the US, a nation that has consistently
spoken out against torture and the use of medical professionals in
these practices is now seeking to cloak abusive and illegal
interrogation techniques in the white coat of the medical profession.
The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell,
claimed in July that the ``enhanced'' program is safe because of
medical supervision. Health professionals that participate in the role
Admiral McConnell describes violate the War Crimes Act, the Hippocratic
Oath and the terms of their health professional license. By monitoring
interrogations, health professionals cease to be healers and instead
become calibrators of harm.
Health Impact of U.S. Interrogation Policies Worldwide
I am very concerned as a health professional that when we as a
country condone such methods, we are putting our soldiers and others
U.S. citizens living around the world at risk. Furthermore, practicing
or condoning torture by the United States in any way runs the risk of
increasing what is already a world wide public health epidemic of
torture--documented to occur in more than 100 countries. Torture is
frequently invoked in the name of national security, whether the victim
is a Tibetan monk calling for independence or an African student
advocate protesting for democracy. While torture is not effective in
eliciting accurate information, it is effective in undermining
community, trust and safety. Any condoning of torture or mistreatment
by our country, puts innocent civilians around the world promoting
democracy and freedom under despot regimes in harms way.
Added a torture victim I cared for: ``In order for the United
States to be strong and speak truly to oppressive leaders around the
world, the United States must not torture or mistreat its prisoners--
even terrorists. The United States must lead by example. When the
United States uses these methods to get the information they want, the
other governments who don't care about the population use torture to
oppress their populations. They say `Even the United States uses
torture. Why not us to protect our power?' It is essential that we have
clear standards for the treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody.
Conclusion
As a physician and scientist who has spent much of his professional
career evaluating and caring for victims of torture and abuse, I want
to clearly state that torture and inhuman interrogation techniques are
cruel, ineffective and can have devastating health consequences. As a
health professional, these abuses and the harm they cause deeply offend
medical ethics and values. As an American, they offend the traditions
and principles we have long shared and cherished as a nation, including
a ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment that has stood inviolate since George Washington was
Commander-in-Chief. I urge you to ensure that no one is authorized to
violate these defining principles in the name of the United States.
Recommendations
1. The Intelligence Committee should conduct a full investigation
regarding interrogation practices.
The Intelligence Committee should conduct a full investigation into
what interrogation methods and related practices have been and are
being used by the intelligence community, particularly with regards to
the Central Intelligence Agency.
2. The Intelligence Committee should ensure transparency regarding
interrogation methods used.
The idea that interrogation techniques must be secret is an
invitation to torture. Arguably the most effective means of preventing
torture is to ensure transparency.
3. The Intelligence Committee should ensure that torture and abusive
interrogation techniques are prohibited.
The restrictions contained in the Army Field Manual should apply to
the treatment of all detainees during interrogations conducted by all
U.S. personnel (including the CIA and any contractors) anywhere in the
world. Additionally, torture and abusive interrogation techniques such
as stress positions, shaking and beating, temperature manipulation,
threats of harm to person or loved ones, prolonged isolation, sleep
deprivation, sensory overload, sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation,
exploitation of fears and phobias, cultural or religious humiliation
and water-boarding should be explicitly forbidden through amendments to
the War Crimes Act.
4. The Intelligence Committee should ensure that health professionals
do not violate their professional ethics
Health professionals must uphold the ethical standards of their
professions and must not be put in positions where they are expected or
asked to violate them. Press reports and government documents have
shown that health professionals, especially psychologists and other
mental health specialists, have allegedly played a central role in the
design, supervision, and implementation of these abusive and illegal
tactics. Congress must ensure that role is uniformly prohibited without
exceptions.
Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you, Dr. Keller.
Ms. Massimino.
STATEMENT OF ELISA MASSIMINO, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST
Ms. Massimino. Thank you, Senator.
I am honored to be here today and I appreciate the
opportunity to share with you the views of Human Rights First
on this important issue. I'm not an expert on interrogations or
intelligence. I've spent most of the last two decades working
to leverage the positive example of the United States to
pressure other governments to respect human rights. But I start
from the premise that intelligence gathering is a vital tool in
disrupting terrorist networks. Effective interrogations are an
important part of this effort when they are conducted
consistent with the laws and values of the United States.
As General Otstott mentioned, the Director of National
Intelligence recently said that he would not be comfortable
having the CIA techniques used against Americans, but if
there's one rule of U.S. interrogation policy after the Hamdan
decision, it's this: if the U.S. does not want Americans to be
subjected to these techniques, it must not employ them itself.
If the CIA is authorized to use a particular interrogation
method under the Executive Order, it means the U.S. considers
that method compliant with Common Article 3 and that our
enemies can lawfully use those methods against captured
Americans in any situation governed by Common Article 3.
This is hardly a theoretical concern. During the cold war,
when my father served, captured CIA officers were subjected by
Chinese interrogators to precisely the same kinds of abusive
interrogation techniques that are now reportedly being used by
the CIA--sleep deprivation, long time standing and other
techniques that leave no physical external marks. Would it have
made a difference to us if the purpose of the Chinese in
interrogating those prisoners was not to humiliate or degrade
the CIA officers but simply to gain information? I don't think
so. Yet there is language in the Executive Order that would
have offered the Chinese just such an argument. If it's read in
this manner, the Executive Order sets a dangerous precedent.
It's important to remember that all violations of Common
Article 3 are prohibited, not just the grave breaches outlined
in the Military Commissions Act. Congress explicitly rejected
the Administration's proposal to limit U.S. obligations under
Common Article 3 to torture and other war crimes. All of Common
Article 3 applies to the CIA and the MCA did nothing to change
that.
Nor does the MCA authorize the enhanced interrogation
techniques. To the contrary, Senator Warner said during debate
that all the techniques banned by the Army field manual
constitute grave breaches of Common Article 3 and are clearly
prohibited under the MCA. No one contradicted that statement at
any point in the Congressional debate, and no Member of
Congress defended the specific techniques reportedly used by
the CIA or claimed that those techniques would be legal. To the
contrary, the Congressional record is crystal clear. The MCA
was intended to rein in the CIA program.
The highest-ranking uniformed lawyers of all four branches
of the service agree that such techniques are illegal. They
have all testified that the stress positions, the use of dogs,
forced nudity and the like are illegal, inhumane and violate
Common Article 3. This view is consistent with past U.S.
practice, our own court precedent, and the views of our closest
allies, as I outline in my written testimony.
Administration officials frequently imply that the U.S.
wants detainees to believe that they will be tortured by their
American captors, yet we want the rest of the world to believe
just the opposite. We can't have it both ways. The problem now
is not that the enemy knows what to expect from us; it's that
the rest of the world, including our allies, does not. There
was a time, not that long ago, when the President declared that
the demands of human dignity were ``nonnegotiable,'' when no
one in the U.S. government questioned the meaning and scope of
humane treatment provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and when
the rest of the world viewed with great skepticism claims by
U.S.-held prisoners that they had been abused.
Today we are in a very different place. Our stand on human
dignity seems to be that it is negotiable so long as there's no
permanent damage. The humane treatment provisions of Common
Article 3, which were clear to our military for more than half
a century, are now considered by the Administration to be too
vague to enforce, and much of the rest of the world believes
that the U.S. routinely tortures prisoners in our custody.
Congress should ensure that the U.S. adheres to a single
standard of humane treatment of all prisoners in its custody.
The most effective way to accomplish this would be to make the
McCain amendment's Army field manual provision binding on all
government agencies. For the safety of U.S. personnel and the
integrity of human rights standards, the U.S. must make clear
to the American people and to the rest of the world what it
means when it says it will abide by its obligations under
Common Article 3.
Interrogation techniques need not cause permanent damage in
order to be unlawful, but they have inflicted enormous damage
on the honor and reputation of the United States. Your actions
will help to determine whether that damage is permanent.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Massimino follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you very much, Ms. Massimino.
Now we'll turn to Professor Turner.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR ROBERT F. TURNER, SJD, CENTER FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY LAW, UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Turner. Vice Chairman Bond, Members of the Committee,
it is a great honor to be here today. I have a rather lengthy
prepared statement that I would propose to submit for the
record.
Vice Chairman Bond. That will be submitted, without
objection. We appreciate your summarizing it in five minutes.
Mr. Turner. I believe I was invited because I co-authored
an op ed article in the Washington Post on July 26 with former
Marine Corps Commandant P.X. Kelley criticizing the Executive
Order in question. My formal statement is divided into three
parts, starting with constitutional law, then international
law, then some public policy considerations which I would
really like to expand upon.
My constitution discussion is somewhat detailed because I
think there's a great deal of confusion about separation of
powers in this area of foreign affairs and intelligence. I
wrote a 1,700-page doctoral dissertation on this issue many
years ago, and I've been frustrated by much of the debate on
both sides.
Guided by writers like John Locke and Montesquieu and
William Blackstone, as well as their own experience under the
Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers did not intend
for Congress to have any role in what John Jay in Federalist 64
called ``the business of intelligence'' beyond providing funds.
Jay discussed the importance of protecting intelligence sources
and methods and explained that because Congress and the Senate
could not be trusted to keep secrets, the Constitution had left
the President ``able to manage the business of intelligence as
prudence might suggest.''
The early appropriations for intelligence told the
President to just tell us how much you spent and we will
replenish the kitty, but do not tell us if you think anything
has to be kept secret. In my statement I quote Thomas Jefferson
and his rival Alexander Hamilton as well, explaining that the
grant of ``executive power'' to the President in Article II,
Section 1, carried with it the general management of foreign
affairs, subject to a few narrowly-construed negatives or
``exceptions'' vested in the Senate or in Congress. I quote
Chief Justice John Marshall in perhaps the most famous of all
Supreme Court cases, Marbury v. Madison, as declaring ``there
exists no power'' to control the President's constitutional
discretion in the foreign affairs area.
I strongly suggest that one of our biggest problems in the
post-Vietnam era has in fact been legislative law-breaking.
Both the President and Congress must obey the higher law of the
Constitution. To give you just one example, since the Chadha
decision in 1983 that outlawed legislative vetoes, Congress has
enacted more than 500 of those unconstitutional acts. But there
is no constitutional problem with Congress legislating to
enforce Common Article 3, because one of those ``exceptions''
expressly given to Congress is the power, in Article I, Section
8, to define and punish violations of the law of nations, and
certainly that includes the Geneva Conventions, which are the
most subscribed-to conventions in the history of the world.
The constitutional section of my prepared statement also
notes that under our Constitution the President has sole power
to interpret the international meaning of treaties in the
nation's dealing with the external world. Both the President
and Congress have the power to violate treaty obligations, but
I stress--and this is critically important--this is only true
in terms of domestic United States law; and such actions make
us an international lawbreaker liable to a variety of potential
remedies available to other treaty partners. And while we're
talking about war crimes I would emphasize that includes the
right of 193 other countries to try Americans for violations of
Common Article 3 and any grave breaches of the law of armed
conflict. There is no statute of limitations. People engaged in
this behavior may spend the rest of their lives unable to
travel to foreign countries.
Part two of my statement addresses international law
issues. It looks briefly at the history of Jus in Bello and, in
particular, the travaux of Common Article 3 of the four 1949
Geneva Conventions. In doing some additional research for
today's hearing, I must confess I was surprised to find a very
strong case that Common Article 3 was originally written to
address the problem of civil wars and revolutions within a
single state and that many prominent scholars have interpreted
it that way, despite some last-minute changes in its wording
that to me suggest it applies to all armed conflicts not
involving sovereign states on both sides.
I believe the United States is bound by Common Article 3,
but were there no Common Article 3, we would still be bound by
the humanitarian principles it embodies as a matter of
customary international law. That has been the position of our
government for many years.
I've given you some examples of ways in which language
similar to that in Common Article 3 has been interpreted by
international tribunals like the European Court of Human
Rights, the International Criminal Court for the former
Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
With the permission of the Committee, I would like to expand
that section for the record in the next few days.
Vice Chairman Bond. Without objection, it will be accepted.
Mr. Turner. Turning to policy issues, in 1809, Thomas
Jefferson wrote a letter to newly-elected President James
Madison in which he said, ``It has a great effect on the
opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on
our side.'' In his very excellent speech earlier this month to
the Council on Foreign Relations, General Hayden emphasized
``winning the war of ideas actually defines the long-term
victory that we seek.'' I could not agree more. And to win this
war, America must maintain the high moral ground.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Vice Chairman Bond. Thank you, Professor Turner.
Without objection, the Committee has received statements
from the American Psychological Association and the National
Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Without objection, those will be included in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of the American Psychological Association Concerning
Psychology and Interrogations
For more than two years the American Psychological Association
(APA), a scientific and professional organization of more than 150,000
psychologists and affiliates, has examined in depth the ethical aspects
of psychologists' involvement in interrogation settings. Members of the
APA and outside groups with an interest in this issue have discussed
and debated the appropriate role for psychologists in eliciting
information in both domestic and foreign non-treatment related
contexts.
The APA has drawn three central conclusions from its work on this
complex and challenging issue:
First, psychologists have important contributions to make
in eliciting information that can be used to prevent violence and
protect our nation's security;
Second, there must be clear ethical guidelines governing
processes by which information is elicited from an individual who may
not be willing to provide the desired information;
Third, further research on all aspects of information-
educing processes is critical.
Psychologists' Contributions to Eliciting Information
Conducting an interrogation is inherently a psychological endeavor.
Forming a relationship and building rapport have proven to be effective
means of eliciting information. Psychology is central to this process
because an understanding of an individual's belief systems, desires,
motivations, culture and religion likely will be essential in assessing
how best to form a connection and facilitate educing accurate, reliable
and actionable intelligence. Psychologists have expertise in human
behavior, motivations and relationships. The background, training, and
experience offered in psychology are therefore highly relevant to the
process of creating and nurturing conditions that will maximize the
likelihood of obtaining good and useful information. Psychologists have
valuable contributions to make toward the goals of preventing violence
and protecting our nation's security through interrogation processes.
Need for Strict Ethical Guidelines within Interrogation Policy
The process of eliciting information from an unwilling individual
must be governed by strict ethical guidelines. The APA has issued three
statements in the past three years that speak directly to the ethics of
psychologists' involvement in information-eliciting processes. The
central message of these texts, taken individually and as a group, is
that there is no room for abuse in forming the kind of relationship
that will result in gathering useful information and that respecting
the individual's dignity is essential in all aspects of these
endeavors.
The first of the three APA statements was issued in 2005, the
Report of the Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security.
This task force report contained twelve statements that formed the
initial position for APA on psychologists' involvement in interrogation
settings:
1. Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate,
or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment.
2. Psychologists are alert to acts of torture and other cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment and have an ethical
responsibility to report these acts to the appropriate
authorities.
3. Psychologists who serve in the role of supporting an
interrogation do not use health care related information from
an individual's medical record to the detriment of the
individual's safety and well-being.
4. Psychologists do not engage in behaviors that violate the
laws of the United States, although psychologists may refuse
for ethical reasons to follow laws or orders that are unjust or
that violate basic principles of human rights.
5. Psychologists are aware of and clarify their role in
situations where the nature of their professional identity and
professional function may be ambiguous.
6. Psychologists are sensitive to the problems inherent in
mixing potentially inconsistent roles such as health care
provider and consultant to an interrogation, and refrain from
engaging in such multiple relationships.
7. Psychologists may serve in various national security-related
roles, such as a consultant to an interrogation, in a manner
that is consistent with the Ethics Code, and when doing so
psychologists are mindful of factors unique to these roles and
contexts that require special ethical consideration.
8. Psychologists who consult on interrogation techniques are
mindful that the individual being interrogated may not have
engaged in untoward behavior and may not have information of
interest to the interrogator.
9. Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality.
10. Psychologists are aware of and do not act beyond their
competencies, except in unusual circumstances, such as set
forth in the Ethics Code.
11. Psychologists clarify for themselves the identity of their
client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are
not their clients.
12. Psychologists consult when they are facing difficult
ethical dilemmas.
Central ethical issues that govern psychologists' involvement in
interrogations emerge from these twelve statements of the Task Force
Report on Psycholoqical Ethics and National Security:
Psychologists must never engage in, promote, or
facilitate torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment;
Psychologists who become aware that torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is being perpetrated have
an ethical responsibility to report such abuse to appropriate
authorities;
Psychologists must keep separate their roles as
healthcare providers from their non-healthcare provider roles; and
Psychologists must stay within the bounds of their
competence.
The following year, the APA's governing body, the Council of
Representatives, adopted the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, and Degradinq Treatment or Punishment. This resolution
elaborated upon key elements of the 2005 task force report. The 2006
resolution reemphasized the absolute prohibition against torture in
several clauses:
BE IT RESOLVED that regardless of their roles, psychologists
shall not knowingly engage in, tolerate, direct, support,
advise, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment;
BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall not provide knowingly
any research, instruments, or knowledge that facilitates the
practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment;
BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall not knowingly
participate in any procedure in which torture or other forms of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment is used or. threatened . . . ;
The 2006 resolution reiterated that psychologists have an ethical
responsibility to report acts of abuse:
BE IT RESOLVED that psychologists shall be alert to acts of
torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and have an ethical
responsibility to report these acts to the appropriate
authorities;
In addition, the 2006 resolution drew from international human
rights instruments by adopting the definition of torture set forth in
the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and by stating that psychologists
must work in according with human rights instruments relevant to their
roles:
BE IT RESOLVED that, in accordance with Article I of the United
Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, [T]he
term ``torture'' means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him
or a third person information or a confession, punishing him
for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected
of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official [e.g.,
governmental, religious, political, organizational] capacity.
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions [in accordance
with both domestic and international law];
BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the APA's long-standing
commitment to basic human rights including its position against
torture, psychologists shall work in accordance with
international human rights instruments relevant to their roles;
The 2006 Resolution thus emphasizes and elaborates upon key aspects
of the 2005 Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National
Security.
In 2007, the APA issued a third resolution titled Reaffirmation of
the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its
Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as ``Enemy
Combatants.''
The APA's 2007 resolution elaborates upon several elements central
to the 2006 resolution and the 2005 task force report. The 2007
resolution identifies techniques that fall under the definition of
``torture'' and other ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,'' thus
adding specificity to the concepts of torture and abuse:
BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all
techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the
United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva
Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by
no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists
against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or
in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions,
water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or
suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious
humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology,
induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-
altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting
information; as well as the following used for the purposes of
eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding,
forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten
or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking,
exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and
isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or
sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant
pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would
judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened use of any of
the above techniques to the individual or to members of the
individual's family;
In addition, the 2007 resolution further elaborates the ethical
responsibility of psychologists to cooperate with oversight activities:
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association
asserts that all psychologists with information relevant to the
use of any method of interrogation constituting torture or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment have an
ethical responsibility to inform their superiors of such
knowledge, to inform the relevant office of inspector generals
when appropriate, and to cooperate fully with all oversight
activities, including hearings by the United States Congress
and all branches of the United States government, to examine
the perpetration of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment against individuals in United States
custody, for the purpose of ensuring that no individual in the
custody of the United States is subjected to torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;
The 2007 resolution also calls upon U.S. legal systems to reject
testimony that results from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment:
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association, in
order to protect against torture and cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment, and in order to mitigate
against the likelihood that unreliable and/or inaccurate
information is entered into legal proceedings, calls upon
United States legal systems to reject testimony that results
from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Central to the APA's analysis of these issues in the 2005 task
force report and the 2006 and 2007 resolutions is that the appropriate
question is not whether psychologists may contribute to eliciting
information to prevent acts of violence and protect our nation's
security, but rather how they may do so in an ethical manner.
Need for Relevant Research
The third and final conclusion that the APA has drawn from its work
in this area is that essential research is lacking. Creating a research
agenda is critical and cannot wait. A cursory review of the issues
yields questions that are central to the process of eliciting
information but that have little basis in extant research. Five
examples are:
What is the most effective means of eliciting information
from a recalcitrant subject?
What indicia may be used to differentiate when a subject
is providing accurate and actionable intelligence from when a subject
is intentionally providing false or useless information?
How may culture, ethnicity, religion and gender
facilitate, or hinder, the process of eliciting information?
What characteristics make an individual a more--or less--
effective interrogator?
What background and training best prepares interrogators
for their task?
These are a very few of the myriad questions for which research is
necessary. In line with the November 2006 Intelligence Science Board
Study Report on Educinq Information, APA recommends that this Committee
authorize development and funding of a research ``center of
excellence'' on educing information under the Director of National
Intelligence. Five and ten years from now we should not be forced to
rely on anecdotal accounts of what is or is not effective
interrogation. The APA has been actively engaged in examining the
ethical role of psychologists in interrogation settings. Research will
be critical for psychologists to move our understanding of these
processes to a deeper and more effective level.
For more information please contact: Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD,
Director, Ethics Office, American Psychological Association,
202.336.6006 or sbehnke@apa.org.
Statement of Rev. George Hunsinger on Behalf of the National Religious
Campaign Against Torture Concerning CIA Interrogation Techniques
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this written statement to
the committee. The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT)
is a campaign of over 125 religious organizations working together to
abolish U.S. policy permitting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment of anyone, without exception. NRCAT members include
representatives from the Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline
Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Jewish, Quaker,
Muslim, and Sikh communities. Additional information about NRCAT, our
membership, and our work are attached to this statement.
NRCAT believes that torture violates the basic dignity of the human
person that all religions hold dear. It degrades everyone involved--
policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's
most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane
treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.
Since the disclosure of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, through the
reports by released detainees and human rights groups, and up to the
July 20 Executive Order by President Bush, we have been aware of the
fact that the CIA has engaged in an interrogation program that uses
techniques involving torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment. Although the Executive Order now says it prohibits such
treatment of detainees, it allows the CIA to continue to use undefined
and undisclosed ``alternative interrogation techniques,'' creating
serious doubt as to whether the prohibition is real. And, as you know,
the Executive Order does not close or prohibit the use of secret
prisons--the only purpose of which is perceived to be to engage in
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment--nor does it prohibit
sending detainees to countries which have been known to torture for
interrogation.
With the President's Executive Order and the accompanying
statements of the President and the Director of the CIA, the United
States Government has reaffirmed its policy of treating some human
beings as outside the protections of any law and of using--in the name
of national security--techniques that amount to torture. We believe
that the United States should be doing just the opposite--affirming the
right of every human being to be protected by the laws of civilized
society and decrying any treatment that comes close to the edge of
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
I am not speaking today on whether or not torture ``works,'' the
implications of our country's use of torture on our military personnel
when they are captured, or the effect our use of torture has on how the
United States is perceived around the world. While I believe the
conclusion to each of those discussions is a compelling decision not to
use torture, I am speaking to you today only from the moral or
religious perspective. NRCAT is submitting this statement, because
regardless of what anyone believes about torture's effectiveness (and I
believe the overwhelming evidence is that torture is not effective), it
is morally wrong and should never be used by the United States against
anyone under any circumstances.
The urge to humiliate, torment and degrade lurks deep within the
human breast. Under conducive circumstances no one can entirely
withstand it. Sadism is not born but made. That is why torture, once
chosen, cannot readily be contained, and is soon preferred. Torture,
once chosen, both proliferates and corrupts. Proliferation is its
dimension of breadth, and corruption its dimension of depth. Torture
undermines victim and torturer alike. It corrodes the society that
permits it. It overthrows the rule of law, and then destroys the
tyrannies that it spawns. Corrupting the soul, it eventually corrupts
everything in its path. Torture is itself the ticking bomb.
We speak to the issue of torture and the CIA's ``alternative
interrogation techniques'' from our common religious principles that
affirm the inherent worth and dignity of all people. Although our
beliefs are rooted in many different religions, and although we worship
in different ways and in different languages, we stand firmly united
and unswerving on this crucial moral issue. Our condemnation of torture
is not based on any political opinion or on the laws or treaties of any
nations. Rather, we are guided by a higher law that serves as a compass
for all of humanity.
Continuation of the CIA's ``alternative'' interrogation program,
including the use of secret prisons and rendition for torture, is
wrong. As people of faith--who value our common humanity and our
religious responsibility to treat all people with decency and the due
process protections of civilized law--we urge you immediately to stop
the use of the ``alternative interrogation techniques'', to close all
secret prisons, and to stop rendition to torture.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
Vice Chairman Bond. Now, because of time constraints, I
will not only call on the distinguished Senator from California
to ask questions, but I will pass to her the ultimate weapon of
authority, the small wooden gavel. I thank our witnesses for
their testimony.
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Well, thank you very much,
Mr. Vice Chairman. We understand that you have to leave. The
two of us will carry on here.
I want to begin by thanking the five of you for coming here
today. I want to thank you for the papers you've submitted.
They are not classified, and it's my intention to take them out
and take them with me and really read them as carefully as I
possibly can. One of the problems we have here is that we can't
really take notes with us of classified information. So I think
your history, your ideas, your thoughts are really, really
important.
Let me give you a summary statement. I very much agree with
you. I think that this is essentially a war of ideas. I think
our values are being tested. I think the people we interrogate
are not people who are drafted into the North Korean army or
into the German army during World War II. They are hard, fast
ideologues who are prepared to give their lives for what they
believe, either by exploding themselves or whatever else.
And I candidly believe that some of this just doesn't work.
Although we're not often told this, we probably get a lot of
bad intelligence in the process as well. We probably get some
good intelligence in the process as well.
I also agree with you on the President's July 20, 2007,
statement. I'd just like to point something out. On page 2,
subsection (e), where it states that ``wilful and outrageous
acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or
degrading the individual in a manner so serious,'' et cetera,
but I gather if it's done for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence, it's okay. I think that's a real problem with the
statement.
Have you looked at that? Do you agree with this, or do you
have any other thoughts?
General Otstott. I absolutely agree with you on that. It
opens the door for bad behavior.
Mr. Turner. You will remember from law school, no doubt,
the Latin expression ``expressio unius est exclusio
allerius''--the expression of one thing is the exclusion of
another. And when you say if you do this for the purpose of
humiliating people, you can't threaten to sexually mutilate
them and so forth, implicit in that, at least a reasonable
interpretation of that is that if your purpose is, as you say,
collecting intelligence or trying to protect against the next
terrorist attack, then these things are not off limits.
That's very offensive.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse, you're
on.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
I'd like to join you in thanking these witnesses. I found
their testimony very helpful. Professor Turner, it's nice to
see a professor from my alma mater here testifying.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, that's why you're so smart.
Senator Whitehouse. For the record, she was referring to
Professor Turner. [Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. I thought, Ms. Massimino, that your
comparisons with some of the historical antecedents where we
were on the other side was extremely helpful to understand
particularly the episode of the Japanese officer sentenced to
hard labor for war crimes for the techniques that you
indicated.
Colonel Kleinman, you entered the service in 1985?
Colonel Kleinman. I was commissioned in 1985, yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. And you're still on active duty today?
Colonel Kleinman. I'm an active reservist. I'm the senior
reserve intelligence officer for the Air Force Special
Operations Command.
Senator Whitehouse. In the 22 years that you have been
serving, how much of that time has been dedicated to
interrogation and human intelligence collection?
Colonel Kleinman. One hundred percent, sir. That's my
career. The sum total of my career has been in human
intelligence, much of it relating to either interrogation or
resisting interrogation.
Senator Whitehouse. And you've been an advisor to
intelligence teams and interrogators operating truly at the
forefront of our most significant conflicts, correct?
Colonel Kleinman. Yes, sir. I've conducted interrogations
myself. I was also a team chief during the Gulf War, where I
had interrogators from all the services under my command as we
interrogated literally thousands of Iraqis. I was an advisor to
a Special Operations Task Force on Interrogation during Iraqi
Freedom. So I've had a chance to really look at the academic
theoretical side, but I am steeped in the operational side.
Senator Whitehouse. If you look at what we're allowed to do
to collect information under the Army field manual, there are
arguably two constraints on it, two limiting factors. One is
the limiting factor that we have discussed here, the sort of
moral limiting factor, the if we do it to them they can do it
to us factor--the sort of golden rule of interrogation, if you
will.
Let me ask you, just for purposes of argument, to set that
aside for a minute and consider, as a real career expert in
intelligence-gathering from people who you have custody over,
if you could set aside the rest of it, if you were in a dark
room, you knew nobody would ever look, the intelligence that
you needed to get was of urgent value, would you feel that from
a point of view of intelligence-gathering effectiveness you
would or could or should go beyond the Army field manual and
the techniques that are authorized in the Army field manual in
order to obtain that intelligence?
Colonel Kleinman. Senator, I thank you so much for that
question, because I think I've been waiting twenty years to
answer it. That is, absolutely not. I do not perceive the
construct of the Army field manual places undue limitations in
terms of what I need to do to generate useful information.
That's the key--accurate, useful information, not leading
questions to force somebody to say what they think I want to
hear. My goal is to explore the full spectrum of their
knowledgeability, where they answer not only the questions I
ask but also, by developing what I call operational accord, I
am able to build a relationship such that they see it's in
their best interests, under non-pressure, non-coercive
circumstances that it would be in their best interest to answer
these questions fully.
I've had situations during the Iraq war where we were very
interested in the location of SCUD missile systems. I had a
source that nobody suspected of having knowledge in this area.
At the conclusion of four hours of interrogating him about
other elements--and it was a treasure trove of information--we
had a relationship such that as I was getting up, shuffling my
papers, he said, ``Didn't you want to know where the SCUD
missiles were?'' So I said, ``We've spent four hours already,
I'm tired, can't we do this tomorrow. [Laughter.]
Colonel Kleinman. I, of course, sat back down and he gave
us incredible information. And the reason, he told me, was that
he was so amazed at his treatment. I hoped, he said, that if I
was going to be captured, that I would be captured by one of
your allies, not by the Americans, because I was told you were
animals. But you've treated me like a gentleman. You've treated
me with respect, and you are clearly knowledgeable of my
customs and my culture. I'm more than happy to answer any
question you have.
Senator Whitehouse. May I follow up? I'm afraid something
you said might be taken out of context. I'd like to go back and
ask you to go over with it again with me. You said briefly ``I
am not limited by the Army field manual.'' When you said that,
I assume you did not mean that in the actions that you
undertake in your professional capacity there's anything you do
that's not limited by the Army field manual, as a matter of
law.
I assume that what you meant to say was that you did not
see the constraints of the Army field manual--the moral
constraints, the legal constraints--as in any way inhibiting
the effectiveness of your examination techniques--that you
could do everything you wanted to, that you missed for nothing
because of those restrictions. Is that what you intended to
say?
Colonel Kleinman. Senator, I am forever in your debt for
allowing me to correct myself, because that's precisely what I
meant to say. I don't see those as limiting my ability to
work--the spirit or the letter of that guidance. My approach
was what we call a relationship-based approach--far more than
just rapport-building. I've never felt any necessity or
operational requirement to bring physical, psychological or
emotional pressure on a source to win their cooperation.
So, following the guidance in the field manual, I feel
unconstrained in my ability to work in the paradigm that I've
taught for so many years.
Senator Whitehouse. Can you assume another country in which
there is no such constraint, in which the Chinese feel at
liberty to put American prisoners into prolonged stress
positions or the Japanese feel free to take American prisoners
of war and lean them against the wall on their fingertips for
extended hours, or other such devices that would exceed the
limitations of the Army field manual are pursued? Why is it
that those interrogators utilize those techniques? Is it just
professional disagreement? Do they have a sort of different
view of what is effective? Why do they do it?
Again, setting aside the moral constraints, which I know
animate you very much and me as well, but for purposes of
discussion, from a pure intelligence collection perspective and
setting aside any moral or golden rule limitations on the
behavior that you would want to limit yourself to, why is that
some interrogators would feel that it was appropriate to go
beyond what's permitted by the Army field manual?
Colonel Kleinman. As a graduate of the University of
California, I tip my hat to the University of Virginia for the
critical thinking skills that are taught to the graduates,
because, sir, that gets to the very heart of the matter, and it
is this: there are two objectives that one can pursue in
interrogation--either winning cooperation or compliance. They
seem very similar, but there are profound differences.
Compliance means to take action that's against your
interests, that you don't support, and frequently has nothing
to do with intelligence. Cooperation is winning a source's
willingness to provide useful information. What the Chinese
were interested in, what the Koreans were interested in, what
the North Vietnamese were interested in was maybe five percent
intelligence, 95 percent compliance, meaning creating
propaganda.
Now that's a whole different paradigm. And the approaches
that they used--like sleep deprivation and torture--ultimately
will get any one of us in this room to do things that we
couldn't imagine today. But it doesn't necessarily mean our
ability to provide useful information.
The other part of that paradigm is the fact that obtaining
intelligence--as I mentioned in my opening remarks--is getting
access to somebody's functioning memory. If you think back to
just the panel before ours, if I were to question each of you
systematically, under the best of circumstances, to tell me
what happened--who said what, when, what were the proposals,
who agreed, who disagreed and so forth--we would find some real
deficits in your memory--again under perfect circumstances.
Imagine now if I had had you standing for twelve hours or
in stress positions and now I'm asking you to call upon your
memory. Even if you wanted to, even if you were wilful, you
would be undermined in your ability to do so. So I think the
key point, sir, is are we trying to produce compliance, which
is propaganda, or cooperation, which leads to intelligence.
Senator Whitehouse. Madam Chair, thank you for letting me
go over. It's been enormously valuable to me to hear firsthand
from somebody who has such firsthand lifelong experience in the
field in this discussion. So thank all of the panel. Colonel, I
thank you, and I thank the Chair for letting me expend the
time.
Senator Feinstein. You are very welcome. Let me ask one
last question.
This is a very troubling aspect, I think, of our processes
now, and the question really comes how to handle it. There is a
real element of fear that our country is vulnerable and that we
know there are people that want to hurt us and hurt us in the
most grievous manner possible. Therefore, to be able to get the
maximum amount of information I think the country has been
somewhat humiliated by the fact that Usama bin Ladin has never
been found. Therefore, there's a lot of pressure to try to find
as much as possible out about al-Qa'ida, its whereabouts, its
training grounds, its leadership, and to be able to get to
them.
You have submitted, all of you, that you do not believe
that so-called EITs--and we won't say what they are, but let's
use your description of them, whether that description is right
or wrong--enhanced interrogation techniques are not necessarily
effective.
At this stage, how would you recommend that we proceed? How
do you recommend we find the information that we need? It is
amazing to me that, despite a $50 million reward, no one has
come forward with information with respect to the whereabouts
of Usama bin Ladin. One has to assume that there are a lot of
people that actually know where he is who could really benefit
from that money.
But I think the level of fear, the level of cooption, the
level of ideologic zealotry that is connected to this
fanaticism is really unprecedented in our history.
I know you'll say the manual, and I happen to agree with
that. But if you have any other comments I'd like to take just
one last shot at hearing what they are.
Ms. Massimino. If I might, Senator, there is another field
manual that I think is important, which really gets to the
heart of your question of how we win a battle against an enemy
like that. And that is the manual that General Petraeus oversaw
before he left to take over in Iraq--the counterinsurgency
manual. There I think that the field manual on interrogations
fits like a glove with the overall strategy outlined in the
counterinsurgency manual, which is that you seek to de-
legitimize the enemy in the eyes of the population from which
it gets its recuperative power, its recruits. You seek to
separate the enemy from its support base. And one of the ways
of doing that is to maintain the moral high ground, to
criminalize the actions of the enemy in the society where they
are operating.
And one of the warnings in that manual is the degree to
which our forces and our personnel use the methods of the
enemy. We then forfeit our benefit in this asymmetric war
against them. They will use methods that we would never
contemplate. That's their supposed advantage.
Ours is that our values and our ideas are better and we
don't want to forfeit that. If we forfeit that, that's the
message of the counterinsurgency manual, as I read it, and it
really gets to the heart of what you're asking about, I think.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Any other last comment?
General Otstott. I would just comment that we are in what
has been described as a long war or a persistent conflict, and
these are religious zealots. Our most dangerous enemies are
Islamic jihadist fundamentalist zealots. The people that know
exactly where Usama bin Ladin is at any given time probably are
no more than a dozen or a hundred. And they are zealots and
they are religiously motivated. I don't think you could pay
them enough money to come out of the cave and say he's in
there, because that would just go against everything that they
are very, very strongly religiously motivated by.
So it comes down to the war of ideas. We've got to somehow
spread the ideas we have that are on a higher plain and get
them to disown jihadism. We need to offer ideas in their
cultural understanding that prevents jihadism from growing
amongst the people who are disadvantaged, who have no hope, who
have no economy to speak of and have no purpose in life except
to pick up an AK-47 and wage war against the ``crusaders'' or
the infidels. Somehow we've got to get beyond the idea that we
can torture information out of somebody and make them tell us
where Usama bin Ladin is and then all will be well.
Mr. Turner. About two years ago I going on vacation, riding
across the country with my son, when Voice of America called
and said what do you think about all this stuff about torture.
My response was, ``some very good people have done some very
bad things for very good reasons,'' which is to say good people
are trying to stop terrorism and they think this is the way to
do it.
I don't think it's the way to do it. The people I've talked
to in the FBI and people here on this panel say that doesn't
work. I don't agree we necessarily need to have a uniform
standard. That is to say it may well be the CIA has a very
senior Islamic scholar who they could send in and engage in a
debate about what the Qur'an means. For a Christian Army
sergeant to go in and do that would be absolutely asinine. So,
to me, the standard ought to be ``humane treatment.''
Common Article 3 and customary international law require
humane treatment. It's a fairly high standard. I love the test
the Army uses, which they call their modified golden rule. Ask
yourself how you would feel if they did this to our prisoners.
If you find it objectionable, don't do it.
We have the ticking bomb scenario. My guess is we'll never
have that case. If we did, I'm not prepared to say that I would
risk 2,000 or 100,000 lives in a setting involving WMD
protecting the civil liberties of a terrorist. We would violate
the law. We would be vulnerable to war crimes trials. But I can
understand somebody making that policy judgment. But ultimately
you certainly don't do it by issuing an Executive Order saying
as long as you don't want to humiliate a detainee you can rip
his fingernails out.
We have to maintain the high moral ground. I think the
Director of the CIA was exactly right when he said this is a
struggle for ideas. The General just said that. We can't win
that struggle if the world and our own people see us as
barbarians.
Colonel Kleinman. I just wanted to answer your question
this way. We have actually encountered this very same
circumstance once before, back in 1941. When we went to
interrogate Japanese prisoners of war, they were seen as
zealots. The language was ``impenetrable.'' The culture was
``inscrutable.'' It was beyond our understanding. But we had an
approach, conducted by a small group of people who spent a lot
of time in Japan, who spoke the language, who were absolutely
comfortable in that culture. They used what I call enlightened
cultural finesse.
These prisoners were taught bushido from the youngest age,
where not only would they resist; they could not even envision
becoming a prisoner. But they found themselves as prisoners and
they found people who understood them, who could speak the
language, who treated them with respect under that code, and it
was amazing the intelligence that flowed and the relationships
that developed. It was beyond what everybody thought possible.
Everybody thought the Japanese only knew force. And that's what
was used other places and was ineffective.
So I think probably it's a mistake to say that we've never
quite encountered this type of zealotry. We have, but America
was successful before.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Dr. Keller. Senator, I'd like to say, just briefly, first
of all, we all know what's at stake. I will tell you on
September 11 I was rounding the bend at the Lincoln Tunnel when
the first plane hit the World Trade Center and had an
unobstructed view of that. So in my being I understand this,
and rushed to the Bellevue emergency room to do what we could.
These methods--first of all, taking it from the side of the
interrogators and why it's so important to have clear
standards, we like to think of people who would torture as two-
headed monsters, and we've learned very clearly in the
psychological literature that it's easier to do these things
than we'd like to think it is. That's why there's a need for
very clear guidance, that these methods in no way are allowed.
The other thing, from a health perspective, that really
frightens me is that I know from my colleagues caring for
torture survivors around the world that those at risk of being
tortured, individuals speaking out for democracy and freedom,
are at far greater risk now of being tortured, I believe, than
they were before. So we've made the world a much more dangerous
and, I believe, far more unhealthy place for ourselves and for
civilians around the world.
Senator Feinstein. On that note, let me once again say
thank you to the five of you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]