Breaking: Military Agency Called Harsh Methods 'Torture,' Questioned Their Effectiveness

[NYC_SKP]

Document: Military Agency Called Harsh Methods 'Torture,' Questioned Their Effectiveness

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 24, 2009; 5:22 PM

The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.

It remains unclear whether the attachment reached high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. But the document offers the clearest evidence that has come to light so far that those who helped formulate the harsh interrogation techniques voiced early concerns about the effectiveness of applying severe physical or psychological pressure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_pf.html

EDITED TO ADD THE DOCUMENT TEXT. (The July 2002 document referred to in the article)

OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE OF PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL
COERCION IN INTERROGATION

An Overview

( U) INTRODUCTION: Throughout history, interrogation has frequently involved the
application of various physical and/or psychological means of inducing duress. The objective of
this application was to elicit information, compel the prisoner to produce propaganda, submit to
political conversion, and or as a vehicle for intimidation. Throughout most of recorded history,
the rights of prisoners were limited at best. The concept of international law that governs the
treatment of prisoners is a modem phenomenon that remains the topic of continuing debate. This
discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications o f torture;
rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use
of physical and psychological pressures.

(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF INTERROGATION: The primary objective of
interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable
information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application o f
physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this
objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as
possible - in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss
of life - been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually,
proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In
essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-
consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the
assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence.
History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
(NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical
compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture.
However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)

(U) OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:
(U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful
through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the
prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly
cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to
resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal
treatment.

(U) For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an
invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important
insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it
often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity
in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an
interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.

-----
( U) The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the
reliability and accuracy of the information provided. I f an interrogator produces information that
resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of
this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer,
any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

( U) In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by
oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often
incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not
forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the
prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance,
the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the
interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment
of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access
should drive the questioning process. )

(U) Another important aspect of the debate over the use o f torture is the consideration of its
potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries. The
unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could
be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel. While this
would have little impact on those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a
standard means of operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently
weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture o f U.S. persons to accept torture
as an acceptable option.

(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture)
has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable
information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to
dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary,
systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be
exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.

HQ JPRA·CC/25 Jut 02JOSN 654-2509
CLASSIFIED BY: MULTIPLE SOURCES
REASON: EO 12958 (A, C)
DECLASSIFY: Xi or X4

:patriot:

[cliffordu]

1. Looks like the drip-drip-drip has become a deluge....

I LOVE THIS SHIT

SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE. THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS

[NYC_SKP]

3. When your own internal advisory board tells you that it doesn't work...

...how do you come out and say it does?
This is getting interesting.

Excerpt of PDF here:

U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent o f interrogations have been successful
throughthe exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree o f rapport is established with the
prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly
cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to
resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal
treatment.

:patriot:

[librechik]

2. by july 2002, ksm had already been tortured.

whoever did it didn't wait for permission, and then needed an elaborate coverup.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Full Text of the 2-page 2002 document here:

(The July 2002 document referred to in the article)

OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE OF PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL
COERCION IN INTERROGATION

An Overview

( U) INTRODUCTION: Throughout history, interrogation has frequently involved the
application of various physical and/or psychological means of inducing duress. The objective of
this application was to elicit information, compel the prisoner to produce propaganda, submit to
political conversion, and or as a vehicle for intimidation. Throughout most of recorded history,
the rights of prisoners were limited at best. The concept of international law that governs the
treatment of prisoners is a modem phenomenon that remains the topic of continuing debate. This
discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications o f torture;
rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use
of physical and psychological pressures.

(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF INTERROGATION: The primary objective of
interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable
information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application o f
physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this
objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as
possible - in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss
of life - been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually,
proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In
essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-
consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the
assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence.
History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
(NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical
compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture.
However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)

(U) OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:
(U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful
through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the
prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly
cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to
resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal
treatment.

(U) For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an
invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important
insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it
often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity
in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an
interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.

-----
( U) The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the
reliability and accuracy of the information provided. I f an interrogator produces information that
resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of
this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer,
any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

( U) In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by
oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often
incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not
forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the
prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance,
the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the
interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment
of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access
should drive the questioning process. )

(U) Another important aspect of the debate over the use o f torture is the consideration of its
potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries. The
unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could
be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel. While this
would have little impact on those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a
standard means of operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently
weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture o f U.S. persons to accept torture
as an acceptable option.

(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture)
has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable
information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to
dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary,
systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be
exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.

HQ JPRA·CC/25 Jut 02JOSN 654-2509
CLASSIFIED BY: MULTIPLE SOURCES
REASON: EO 12958 (A, C)
DECLASSIFY: Xi or X4

:patriot:

[Cali_Democrat]

5. More evidence to suggest that the Bush administration knew torture would produce false confessions

The article says that "It remains unclear whether the attachment reached high-ranking officials in the Bush administration."

Of course the chances that this document did not reach high-ranking officials in the Bush administration is HIGHLY unlikely. They knew what they were doing was torture.

They knew their torture program would produce unreliable information, false confessions that would provide a "link" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

They could then use that link to invade Iraq, something they always wanted to do anyway. The torture was never really about keeping America safe, it was about invading Iraq.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Of course for Saddam-911 they WANTED false confessions to make the link

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the whole mess, I hope.

:patriot:

[ProSense]

7. Levin "said he believed the attachment was deliberately ignored and perhaps suppressed."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he believed the attachment was deliberately ignored and perhaps suppressed. Excerpts from the document appeared in a report on the treatment of detainees released this month by Levin's committee. The committee report says the attachment echoes JPRA warnings issued in late 2001.

link

[Thrill]

8. We learn a little more everyday.

[horseshoecrab]

9. k& r n/t

[firedupdem]

10. K&R n/t

[firedupdem]

11. K&R n/t

[Captain Hilts]

12. Folks need to stop blaming the military for this stuff. All 4 services lawyers said not to do so.nt

[Seldona]

13. Who needs a lawyer to tell them not to torture?

Water boarding is WELL KNOWN as torture. Same with the rest.

Why do you think the SERE program exists? To harden troops against TORTURE. It was even derived from an old Chinese text on how to torture/elicit false confessions out of people.

Besides ignorance, if that is what you want to call it in this case, is no excuse for breaking the law and committing war-crimes.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Agreed, I sure don't blame the military.

I blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice...

[Enrique]

14. who cares what these fools think

torture works on "24" and that's good enough for me.