U.S. Officials Defend Interrogation Tactics

Top U.S. defense officials said Wednesday that military interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq, such as depriving detainees of sleep, having military dogs present and placing prisoners in humiliating poses did not violate international law.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that the misconduct shown in photos and videos from the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison was inhumane and would be punished. However, he said, other interrogation procedures involving “physical and psychological manipulation” are permissible.

The testimony by Rumsfeld and others before the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee focused on what techniques the military had deemed appropriate in interrogating prisoners and how those related to the Geneva Convention. It came on a day when members of Congress viewed new videos and photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse.

Questions about the approved procedures come as lawmakers investigating the abuses reach into the Pentagon’s chain of command to seek contributing factors. They have asked about the climate in which soldiers worked at Abu Ghraib, orders given by top commanders in Iraq and intelligence-gathering policies at the highest levels of the Defense Department. Many lawmakers blame an unchecked drive to gather usable intelligence for creating the conditions that led to some of the abuses.

Rumsfeld rejected that argument, saying that while the “abuses that took place are terrible, they’re inhumane, they’re inexcusable,” they are not the result of Pentagon policies.

He told the committee that the Geneva Convention applied to all prisoners held in Iraq, but not to those at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whom he deemed “terrorists” and therefore not subject to international norms.

Rumsfeld said Pentagon lawyers had decided that practices such as dietary changes and isolation for longer than 30 days complied with the Geneva Convention, the international rules on war. A list of U.S. interrogation practices was released this week by the Pentagon.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the techniques approved by the Pentagon “go far beyond the standard which says there will be no physical or mental torture nor any other form of coercion.” Durbin pointed to international rules that prohibited the use of “unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

Myers replied that the practices were legal. “Every time we have an interrogation, we have an interrogation plan,” he told senators. “Those are appropriate. And that’s what we’re told by legal authorities and by anybody that believes in humane behavior.”

Noting that an American soldier was missing in Iraq, Durbin said: “I don’t believe what you have issued is consistent with the Geneva Convention. And I think now, more than ever, in light of what happened in that prison, in light of the fact that an American serviceman is being held, we should be clear and unequivocal.”

The Geneva Convention, a series of international agreements on war adopted in 1949, protects civilians in occupied territories as well as prisoners of war.

The list of interrogation techniques approved by the Pentagon showed that U.S. military leaders believed that the Convention and international law provided wide latitude to employ an array of aggressive methods to get prisoners to talk, a review of the procedures and interviews with interrogators show.

The so-called “Interrogation Rules of Engagement” that were posted at the Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq required interrogators to obtain their commanders’ approval before using the more severe methods. The rules stipulated that detainees “NEVER be touched in a malicious or unwanted manner,” and interrogators stressed that they had nothing to do with the sadistic abuses meted out by MPs working the night shift at one of Abu Ghraib’s high-security cell blocks.

The sheet listing the rules of engagement is divided into two sections. Approaches that can be used without prior approval include “incentive,” in which some reward is dangled for cooperation and “fear up harsh,” which involves trying to frighten the prisoner with table-pounding outbursts.

Methods that require approval include the use of humiliating poses, called “stress positions”; “presence of mil working dogs”; isolation for longer than 30 days; and the manipulation of prisoners’ diets.

“Sensory deprivation” refers to the use of hoods on prisoners to keep them disoriented, interrogators said. “Environmental manipulation” could mean anything from providing extra blankets to subjecting prisoners to light or dark environments to confuse them.

In interviews with The Times, interrogators who had worked at U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan described how the guidelines were implemented.

One interrogator at Abu Ghraib said even the settings where interrogations took place were changed to reward or punish prisoners. “We would move them to a nice place, a couch, with end tables and a lamp” if they were offering good information, the interrogator said. If cooperation waned, they might be questioned in dirty tents.

Several interrogators said that direct approaches -- in which interrogators asked straightforward questions and were honest about detainees’ circumstances -- were generally most effective. But so-called high-value detainees often have been trained to resist.

“The harder cases were more susceptible to harder approaches -- adjusted sleep schedules, sleep deprivation,” said one U.S. Army interrogator who served at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. “Guys who are higher up are usually fairly intelligent and they’re going to be able to play mind games with you.”

Prisoners were sometimes kept awake or forced to wear hoods for up to three days, the interrogators said. They said they would seek to unnerve prisoners with snarling dogs as they arrived at facilities, and placed them in cells that were blacked out or bombarded with light -- all in an effort to preserve the “shock of capture” and heighten detainees’ anxieties.

Several interrogators who spoke with The Times said they worried that the controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib would lead to restrictions that would inhibit their ability to gather intelligence.

“There are few tools interrogators have to use,” said a Bagram interrogator. “If they’re taken away to the point that interrogators can only use them in extreme circumstances, how are we ever to get the information that we’re required to get.”

The interrogator added that his unit “had information come out almost on a daily basis that led to another capture or some kind of terrorist alert somewhere else in the world.”

Experts said that at least some of the Pentagon’s approved interrogation rules may fall into murky legal areas.

“It appears they were written to avoid torture, but without regard to the peril of violating prohibitions against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

“If you bring working dogs to intimidate someone, that crosses the line. But something like sleep deprivation, it obviously depends on how severely it’s done.”

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, said many of the harsher techniques were “clearly inconsistent” with international rules.

Times staff writers Bob Drogin, David Savage and Peter Wallsten in Washington contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Interrogation guidelines

The Pentagon this week released to the Senate Armed Services Committee interrogation rules of engagement given to soldiers and commanders on policies for interrogating war prisoners in Iraq. The committee is trying to determine if those techniques comply with the Geneva Conventions. An excerpt from the Geneva Conventions provides a comparison.

Interrogation rules of engagement (IROE)

Approved approaches for all detainees

Direct

Incentive

Incentive removal

Emotional love/hate

Fear up harsh

Fear up mild

Reduced fear

Pride & ego up

Futility

We know all

Establish your identity

Repetition

File & dossier

Rapid fire

Silence

Safeguards

* Techniques must be annotated in questioning strategy

* Approaches must always be humane and lawful

* Detainees will NEVER be touched in a malicious or unwanted manner

* Wounded or medically burdened detainees must be medically cleared prior to interrogation

* The Geneva Conventions apply within CJTF-7 (Combined Joint Task Force).

Require Commanding General’s (CG) approval

(Requests must be submitted in writing)

* Change of scenery down

* Dietary Manip (monitored by med)

* Environmental manipulation

* Sleep adjustment (reverse sched)

* Isolation for longer than 30 days

* Presence of mil working dogs

* Sleep management (72 hrs max)

* Sensory deprivation (72 hrs max)

* Stress positions (no longer than 45 min)

Everyone is responsible for ensuring compliance to the IROE.

Violations must be reported immediately to the officer in charge (OIC).

Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war

SECTION I BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner’s surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Sources: Department of Defense