Witnesses testified about interrogation techniques and methods used to question suspected terrorists at U.S. detention facilities in Cuba and Afghanistan. Several former military judge advocates answered questions about the use of torture such as waterboarding, sensory deprivation, forced nudity, stress positions and exploitation of phobias, as well as legal justifications for the enhanced techniques. They also testified about the role senior Pentagon officials played in developing policies for detainee interrogations and the degree to which the Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency participated in the decision-making process.
Transcript:
00:02:58 Levin, Carl GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. TODAY'S HEARING WILL FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS OF AGGRESSIVE INFAIR GAGS TECHNIQUES. WE HAVE THREE PANELS OF WITNESSES TODAY. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO VOLUNTARILY APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. INTELLIGENCE SAVES LIVES. KNOWING WHERE AN INSURGENT HAS BURIED AN IED CAN KEEP A VEHICLE FROM BEING BLOWN UP. KNOWING THAT AN AL QAEDA ASSOCIATE VISITED AN INTERNET CAFE IN KABUL COULD BE THE KEY PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT UNRAVELS A TERRORIST PLOT TARGETING OUR EMBASSY. BUT HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE INFORMATION TO SHARE IT WITH US? IS DEGRADING THEM OR TREATING THEM HARSHLY INCREASE THE CHANCES THEY'LL BE WILLING TO HELP? JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I VISITED OUR TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN. WHILE I WAS THERE I SPOKE TO A SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER WHO TOLD ME THAT TREATING DETAINEES IS HARSHLY IS ACTUALLY AN IMPEDIMENT, A ROADBLOCK, TO USE THAT OFFICER'S WORD, TO GETTING INTELLIGENCE FROM THEM. HERE IS WHY. HE SAID THAT AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN TERRORISTS ARE TAUGHT TO EXPECT AMERICANS TO ABUSE THEM. THEY'RE RECRUITED BASED ON FALSE PROPAGANDA. IT SAYS THAT UNITED STATES IS OUT TO DESTROY ISLAM. TREATING DETAINEES HARSHLY ONLY REINFORCES THEIR DISTORTED VIEW AND INCREASES THEIR RESISTANCE TO COOPERATE. THE ABUSE AT ABU GHRAIB WAS A POTENT TOOL FOR AL QAEDA AND HANDED THEM A WEAPON THEY COULD USE TO PEDDLE THEIR VIOLENT ETIOLOGY. HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL STRIPPED THEM NAKED, USED DOGS TO SCARE THEM, PUT LEASHES AROUND THEIR NECKS, HOODED THEM, DEPRIVED THEM OF SLEEP AND BLASTED MUSIC AT THEM? WERE THESE ACTIONS THE RESULT OF A, QUOTE, FEW BAD APPLES ACTING ON THEIR OWN? IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER TO ACCEPT IF IT WERE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE TRUTH IS THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SOUGHT INFORMATION ON AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES, TWISTED THE LAW TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR LEGALITY AND AUTHORIZED THEIR USE AGAINST DETAINEES? IN THE PROCESS THEY DAMAGED OUR ABILITY TO COLLECT INTELLIGENCE THAT COULD SAVE LIVES. TODAY'S HEARING WILL EXPLORE HOW IT CAME ABOUT THAT THE TECHNIQUES CALLED SEER RESISTANCE TRAINING TECHNIQUES WHICH ARE USED TO TEACH AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO ABUSE ABUSIVE INTERROGATIONS BY ENEMIES THAT REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS WERE TURNED ON THEIR HEAD AND SANCTIONS BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS FOR USE OFFENSIVELY AGAINST DETAINEES. THOSE TECHNIQUES INCLUDED USE OF STRESS POSITIONS, KEEPING DETAINEES NAKED, USE OF DOGS AND HOODING DURING INTERROGATIONS. SOME BRIEF BACKGROUND ON SEER WHICH STANDS FOR SURVIVAL EVASION RESISTANCE AND ESCAPE TRAINING. UNITED STATES MILITARY HAS FIVE SERE SCHOOLS TO TEACH CERTAIN MILITARY PERSONNEL WHOSE MISSIONS CREATE A HIGH RISK THAT THEY MIGHT BE CAPTURED, THE SKILLS NEEDED TO SURVIVE IN HOSTILE ENEMY TERRITORY, EVADE CAPTURE AND ESCAPE SHOULD THEY BE CAPTURED. THE RESISTANCE PORTION OF SERE TRAINING EXPOSES STUDENTS TO PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURES DESIGNED TO SIMULATE ABUSIVE CONDITIONS TO WHICH THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECT IF TAKEN PRISONER BY ENEMIES THAT MAY ABUSE THEM. THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY, JPRA, IS THE DOD AGENCY THAT OVERSEES SERE TRAINING. JPRA'S INSTRUCTOR GUIDE STATES A PURPOSE OF USING PHYSICAL PRESSURES IN TRAINING IS, QUOTE, STRESS INOCTOBER LAGS, BUILDING SOLDIER IMMUNITYIES SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RESIST. THE TECHNIQUES USED IN SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING CAN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE STRIPPING STUDENTS OF THEIR CLOTHING, PLACING THEM IN STRESS POSITIONS, PUTTING HEADS OVER THEIR HEADS, DISRUPTING THEIR SLEEP, TREATING THEM LIKE ANIMALS, SUBJECTING THEM TO LOUD MUSIC AND FLASHING LIGHTS AND EXPOSING THEM TO EXTREME TEMPERATURES. IT CAN ALSO INCLUDE FACE AND BODY SLAPS AND, UNTIL RECENTLY FOR SOME SAILORS WHO ATTENDED A NAVY SERE SCHOOL, IT KLEIN UDED WATERBOARDING WHICH IS MOCK DROWNING. THE SERE SCHOOLS OBS YOUSLY TAKE EXTREME CARE TO AVOID INJURING OUR OWN SOLDIERS. TROOPS ARE MEDICALLY SCREENED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE FIT FOR THE SERE COURSE. PRIOR TO THE TRAINING EACH STUDENT'S LIMITATIONS ARE CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED TO REDUCE THE CHANCE THAT THE SERE TRAINING AND USE OF SERE TECHNIQUES WILL CAUSE INJURY. THERE ARE EXPLICIT LIMITATIONS ON THE DURATION AND INTENSITY OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WATERBOARDING WAS PERMITTED AT THE NAVY SERE SCHOOL, THE INSTRUCTOR MANUAL STATED A MAXIMUM OF TWO POINTS OF WATER COULD BE USED, AND IF A CLOTH WAS USED TO COVER A STUDENT'S FACE, IT COULD STAY IN PLACE A MAXIMUM OF 20 SECONDS. SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING TECHNIQUES ARE A LEGITIMATE AND IMPORTANT TRAINING TOOL. THEY PREPARE OUR FORCES WHO MIGHT FALL INTO THE HANDS OF AN ABUSIVE ENEMY TO SURVIVE BY GETTING THEM READY FOR WHAT MIGHT CONFRONT THEM. STRICT CONTROLS ARE ALSO IN PLACE DURING SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING TO REDUCE THE RISK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM TO STUDENTS. PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE PRESENT THROUGHOUT SERE TRAINING TO INTERVENE SHOULD THE NEED ARISE AND TO TALK TO STUDENTS DURING AND AFTER THE TRAINING TO HELP THEM COPE FOR WITH THE ASSOCIATED STRESS. THOSE WHO PLAY THE PART OF INTERROGATORS IN THE SERE SCHOOL DRAMA ARE NOT REAL INTERROGATORS, NOR ARE THEY QUALIFIED TO BE. THE DEPUTY COMMANDER PUT IT, THE EXPERTISE OF JPRA LIES IN TRAINING PERSONNEL HOW TO RESPOND AND RESIST INTERROGATIONS, NOT IN HOW TO CONDUCT INTERROGATIONS. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. SOME MIGHT SAY THAT, IF OUR PERSONNEL GO THROUGH IT IN SERE SCHOOL, WHAT'S WRONG WITH DOING IT TO DETAINEES. OUR PERSONNEL ARE STUDENTS AND THEY CAN CALL OFF THE TRAINING AT ANY TIME. SERE TECHNIQUES ARE BASED ON ABUSIVE TACTICS USED BY OUR ENEMIES. IF WE USE THOSE SAME TECHNIQUES OFFENSIVELY AGAINST DETAINEES, IT SAYS TO THE WORLD THEY HAVE AMERICA'S STAMP OF APPROVAL. THAT PUTS OUR TROOPS AT GREATER RISK OF BEING ABUSED IF THEY'RE CAPTURED. IT ALSO WEAKENS OUR MORAL AUTHORITY AND HARMS OUR EFFORT TO ATTRACT ALLYIES TO OUR SIDE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM. HOW DID SERE DETECTS COME TO BE CONSIDERED CONSIDERED?
00:10:36 Levin, Carl IN JULY 2002, RICHARD SHIFFRIN, A WITNESS AT TODAY'S HEARING, CALLED LIEUTENANT COLONEL DANIEL BAUMGARTNER, ALSO A WITNESS TODAY AND THEN CHIEF OF STAFF AT JPRA WHICH IS THE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES THE SERE TRAINING AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION ON SERE TECHNIQUES. IN RESPONSE TO MR. SHIFFRIN'S REQUEST, BAUMGARTNER DRAFTED A TWO-PAGE MEMO AND COMPILED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING FROM SERE INSTRUCTOR LESSON PLANS, AND HE ATTACHED TO HIS MEMO SAYING JPRA WOULD, QUOTE, CONTINUE TO OFFER EXPLOITATION ASSISTANCE TO THOSE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS CHARGED WITH THE MISSION OF GLEANING INTELLIGENCE FROM ENEMY DETAINEES, CLOSED QUOTE. THE MEMO WAS HAND DELIVERED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE ON JULY 25, 2002. AGAIN, IT'S CRITICAL TO REMEMBER THESE TECHNIQUES ARE NOT USED IN SERE SCHOOL TO OBTAIN INTELLIGENCE. THEY ARE TO PREPARE OUR SOLDIERS TO RESIST ABUSIVE INTERROGATIONS. THE NEXT DAY LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER DRAFTED A SECOND MEMO WHICH INCLUDED THREE ATTACHMENTS. ONE OF THOSE ATTACHMENTS LISTED PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURES USED IN SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING, INCLUDING SENSORY DEPRIVATION, STRESS POSITIONS, WATERBOARDING AND SLAPPING. IT ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO A SECTION OF THE JPRA INSTRUCTOR MANUAL THAT TALKS ABOUT COERCIVE PRESSURES LIKE KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON AT ALL TIMES AND TREATING AERN P LIKE AN ANIMAL. ANOTHER ATTACHMENT, WRITTEN BY DR. OGRISSEG, ALSO A WITNESS TODAY, ASSESSED THE LONG-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING ON STUDENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF THE WATERBOARDING. THIS MORNING THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK MR. SHIFFRIN, LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER AND DR. OGRISSEG ABOUT THESE MATTERS. A WEEK AFTER LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER SEND HIS MEMOS TO THE DOD COUNSEL, TWO LEGAL OPINIONS WERE ISSUED, ONCE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FIRST BIBB BEE MEMO WAS ADDRESSED TO ALBERTO GONZALEZ AND PROVIDED STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND INTERROGATION REQUIRED UNDER THE FEDERAL TORTURE STATUTE. THE MEMO CONCLUDED, QUOTE, FOR AN ACT TO CONSTITUTE TORTURE AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE IT MUST INFLICT PAIN THAT IS DIFFICULT TO ENDURE, PHYSICAL PAIN AMOUNTING TO TORTURE MUST BE EQUIVALENT IN INTENSITY TO THE PAIN ACCOMPANYING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY SUCH AS ORGAN FAILURE, IMPAIRMENT OF BODILY FUNCTION OR EVEN DEATH. FOR PURELY MENTAL PAIN OR SUFFERING TO AMOUNT TO TORTURE UNDER THE FEDERAL TORTURE STATUTE, IT MUST RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM OF SIGNIFICANT DURATION, EG, LASTING FOR MONTHS OR EVEN YEARS. THE OTHER OLC OPINION ISSUED THE SAME DAY AN KNOWN COMMONLY AS THE SECOND BIBB BEE MEMO, RESPONDED TO A CIA REQUEST AND ADDRESSED THE LEGALITY OF SPECIFIC INTERROGATION TACTICS. WHILE THE INTERROGATION TACTICS REVIEWED BY THE OLC IN THE SECOND BIBEY MEMO REMAIN CLASSIFIED, GENERAL HAYDEN IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN FEBRUARY SAID THE WATER BOARD WAS JUAN OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT THE CIA USED WITH DETAINEES. STEVEN BRAD BURY, THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OLC TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT, QUOTE, CIA'S USE OF WATERBOARDING PROCEDURE WAS ADAPTED FROM THE SERE TRAINING PROGRAM. DURING THE TIME THE DOD GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE WAS SEEKING INFORMATION FROM JPRA, JPRA STAFF RESPONDS TO A REQUEST FROM GUANTANAMOMO WERE FINALIZIZINGTEPS FROMOMU. SOUTHERERN COMMANDSS JOT T TAS F FOR 170.0. DUDURI T THE WEEEEK OF SEPTEMBER ,, 2002, A GROUP FROM GET MO INCLUDING I INTERROGATORS AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS TRAVELED TO FT. BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA AND ATTENDED TRAINING CONDUCTED BY THE JPRA SERE SCHOOL. ON SEPTEMBER 25th, JUST DAYS AFTER THE GETMO STAFF RETURNED FROM THAT TRAINING A DELEGATION OF SENIOR ADMINISTRATION LAWYERS INCLUDING JAM HAYNES, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JOHN RIZ SEW, ACTING CIA GENERAL COUNSEL, DAVID ATTING TON, COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HEAD OF THE CRIMINAL DAIFGS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VISITED GUANTANAMO. AN AFTER-ACTION REPORT PRODUCED BY A MILITARY LAWYER AFTER THE VISIT NOTED THAT ONE PERSON OF THE TRIP WAS TO RECEIVE BRIEFINGS ON INTEL TECHNIQUES. ON OCTOBER 2nd, 2002, A WEEK AFTER JOHN RIS SEW, THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL VISITED GET MO, A SECOND LAWYER, JONATHAN FRED MAN WHO WAS CHIEF COUNCIL TO THE CIA'S COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER WENT TO GUANTANAMO, ATTENDED A MEETING AND DISCUSSED A MEMO PROPOSING THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. THAT MEMO HAD BEEN DRAFTED BY A PSYCHOLOGIST AND PSYCHIATRIST FROM GET MO WHO A COUPLE WEEKS EARLIER ATTENDED THE TRAINING GIVEN AT FT. BRAGG BY INSTRUCTORS OF THE SERE SCHOOL. WHILE THE MEMO REMAINS CLASSIFIED, MINUTES FROM THE MEETING WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED ARE NOT. THOSE MINUTES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FOCUS OF THE DISCUSSION WAS AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES FOR USE AGAINST DETAINEES. WHEN THE GET MO CHIEF OF STAFF SUGGESTED AT THE MEETING THAT THEY CAN'T DO SLEEP DEPRIVATION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER RESPONDED YES, WE CAN, WITH A PROVL. LIEUTENANT BEAVER ADDED THAT THEY MIGHT NEED TO CURB THE HARSHER OPERATIONS WHILE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS IS AROUND. MR. FRED MAN, THE SENIOR CIA LAWYER SAID IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE TO IDENTIFY DETAINEES PHOBIAS AND TO USE THEM AND DESCRIBED FOR THE GROUP THE SO-CALLED WET TOWEL TECHNIQUE WHICH WE KNOW AS WAITER BOARDING. MR. FRED MAN SAID, XWOET, IT CAN FEEL LIKE YOU'RE DROWNING, THE LIMB FATTIC SYSTEM WILL REACT AS IF YOU'RE SUFFOCATING BUT YOUR BODY WILL NOT CEASE TO FUNCTION. MR. FRED MAN PRESENTED THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF OUR TORTURE LAWS SAYING, QUOTE, IT IS BASICALLY SUBJECT TO PERCEPTION. IF THE DETAINEE DIES, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. IF THE DETAINEES DIE, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. HOW ON EARTH DID WE GET TO FOINT THAT A SENIOR LAWYER WOULD SAY WHETHER OR NOT A IF THE DETAINEE DIES, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG? THE GET MO SENIOR JAG OFFICER, LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S RESPONSE WAS, WE'LL NEED DOCUMENTATION TO PROTECT US. RIGHT --
00:18:04 Levin, Carl THERE WAS A MEMO SENT TO U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO USE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WHICH THE MEMO DIVIDED INTO THREE CATEGORIES OF PROGRESSIVELY MORE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES. CATEGORY ONE WAS THE LEAST AGGRESSIVE. CATEGORY TWO WAS MORE SO INAND INCLUDED THE USE OF STRESS POSITIONS, EXPLOITATION OF DETAINEE FIERCE SUCH AS FEAR OF DOGS, REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, HOODING, DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT AND SOUND, CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES INCLUDED TECHNIQUES LIKE THE SO-CALLED WET TOWEL TREATMENT OR WATER BOARD THAT WAS THE MOST AGGRESSIVE. A LEGAL ANALYSIS BY GET MO STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL DIANE BEAVER, JUSTIFYING THE LEGALITY OF THE TECHNIQUES WAS SENT WITH THAT REQUEST. ON OCTOBER 25th, 2002, GENERAL JAMES HILL, THE SOUTH.COM COMMANDER, FORWARDED THE REQUEST TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. NINE DAYS LATER THE JOINT STAFF SOLICITED THE VIEWS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES ON THE GET MO REQUEST. THAT WAS OCTOBER 25th. MILITARY SERVICES REACTED STRONGLY AGAINST USING MANY OF THE TECHNIQUES IN THE GET MO REQUEST. IN EARLY NOVEMBER OF 2002 IN A VEER REESE OF MEMBERS, THE SERVICES IDENTIFIED SERIOUS LEGAL CONCERNS WITH THE TECHNIQUES, AND THEY CALLED URGENTLY FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS. THE AIR FORCE CITED, QUOTE, SYRUP YOUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF MANY OF THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUES AND STATED THAT THE TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGES AS FAILING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE MILITARY ORDER DESIGNED TO TREAT DETAINEES HUMANLY. THE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISER TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE WROTE THE CATEGORY THREE CATEGORIES AND CERTAIN CATEGORY TWO TECHNIQUES MAY, QUOTE, SUBJECT SERVICE MEMBERS TO PUNITIVE ARTICLES OF THE UCMJ AND CALL, QUOTE, THE UTILITY AND LEGALITY OF APPLYING CERTAIN TECHNIQUES IN THE REQUEST, QUOTE, QUESTIONABLE AND HE COULD NOT ADVOCATE ANY ACTION THAT IS PREDICATED UPON THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL IS WELL IF THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS AND OTHERS ARE NOT AWARE OF HOW WE CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS, CLOSED QUOTE. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY'S INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DIVISION WROTE THAT TECHNIQUES LIKE STRESS POSITIONS, DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT AND AUDITORY STIMULI AND USE OF PHOBIAS TO INDUCE STRESS, QUOTE, CROSSES THE LINE OF HUMANE TREATMENT, CLOSED QUOTE. AND, QUOTE, WOULD LIKELY BE CONSIDERED MALL TREATMENT UNDER THE UCMJ AND MAY VIOLATE THE TORTURE STATUTE. THE ARMY LABELED IT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND CALLED FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW. THE NAVY CALLED FOR A REVIEW. THE MARINE CORPS SAID SEVERAL OF THE CATEGORY TWO AND THREE TECHNIQUES ARGUABLY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD EXPOSE OUR SERVICE MEMBERS TO POSSIBLE PROSECUTION. THE MARINE CORPS SAID THE REQUEST WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT AND LIKE THE OTHER SERVICES CALLED FOR A MORE THOROUGH LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW. WHILE IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT MILITARY LAWYERS VOICE STRONG OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES IN EARLY 2003, DURING THE DOD DETAINEE WORKING GROUP PROCESS, THESE NOVEMBER 2002 WARNINGS FROM THE MILITARY SERVICES WERE EXPRESSED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZED THE USE OF AG GRESS ZIF TECHNIQUES AND WERE NOT PUBLICLY KNOWN UNTIL NOW. WHEN THE JOINT STAFF RECEIVED THE MILITARY SERVICES CONCERNS, REAR ADMIRAL JANE DALTON, THEN LEGAL ADVISER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF BEGAN HER OWN LEGAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. BUT THAT REVIEW WAS NEVER COMPLETED. TODAY WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK REAR ADMIRAL DALTON ABOUT THAT. NOTWITHSTANDING CONCERNS RAISED BY THE MILITARY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL JIM HAYNES SENT A MEMO TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD ON NOVEMBER 22nd 2RKS 002, RECOMMENDING HE APPROVE ALL BUT THREE OF THE 18 TECHNIQUES IN THE GET MO REQUEST, TECHNIQUES LIKE STRESS POSITIONS, REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, USE OF PHOBIA SUCH AS FEAR OF DOGS AND WERE ALL RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. FIVE DAYS LATER ON DECEMBER 2nd, 2002, SECRETARY RUMSFELD SIGNED MR. HAYNES'S RECOMMENDATIONS ADDING THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE, I STAND FOR EIGHT TO TEN HOURS A DAY, WHY IS STANDING FOR FOUR HOURS LIMITED? WHEN SECRETARY RUMSFELD APPROVE THIS HE UNLEASHED A VIRUS WILL AFFECTED INTERROGATION OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. MILITARY IN THE AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. DISCUSSIONS ABOUT REVERSE ENGINEERING, SERE TECHNIQUES IN USE AT GET MO HAD ALREADY PROMPTED STRONG OBJECTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE. MARK FALLEN SAID THAT THE SERE TECHNIQUES WERE DEVELOPED TO BETTER PREPARE U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL TO RESIST INTERROGATIONS AS NOT AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING RELIABLE INFORMATION AND CITF WAS TROUBLED WITH THE RATIONALE THAT TECHNIQUES USED TO HARDEN RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATIONS WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF TECHNIQUES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION. IN THE WEEK FOLLOWING SECRETARY'S DECEMBER 2nd, THE 2002 AUTHORIZATION, SENIOR STAFF SET TO WORK DRAFTING A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE USE OF SERE TECHNIQUES IN INTERROGATIONS. THE FIRST PAGE OF ONE DRAFT OF THAT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE STATED THAT, QUOTE, THE PREMISE BEHIND THIS IS THAT THE INTERROGATION TACTICS USED AT U.S. MILITARY SERE SCHOOLS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR USE IN REAL WORLD INTERROGATIONS. THESE TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES ARE USED AT SERE SCHOOL TO BREAK SERE DETAINEES, THE SAME TECHNIQUES CAN BE USED TO BREAK REAL DETAINEES DURING INTERROGATION, CLOSED QUOTE. THE DRAFT DESCRIBED HOW TO SLAP, STRIP AND PLACE DETAINEES IN STRESS POSITIONS. IT ALSO DESCRIBED HOODING, MAN HANDLING AND WALLING DETAINEES. WHEN THEY SAW THE DRAFT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, THE CITF AND FBI PERSONNEL AGAIN RAISED A RED FLAG. A DRAFT OF THEIR COMMENTS ON THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE SAID THAT THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES ONLY, QUOTE, ENDS UP FUELING OS TILT AND STRENGTHENING A DETAINEE'S WILL TO RESIST. THOSE OBJECTIONS DID NOT STOP GET MO FROM TAKING THE NEXT STEP. TRAINING INTERROGATORS ON HOW TO USE TECHNIQUES OFFENSIVELY. ON DECEMBER 30th, 2002, TWO INSTRUCTORS FROM THE NAVY SERE SCHOOL ARRIVED AT GET MO. THE FOLLOWING DAY IN A SESSION WITH APPROXIMATELY 24 INTERROGATION PERSONNEL, THE TWO DEMONSTRATED HOW TO ADMINISTER STRESS POSITIONS IN VARIOUS SLAPS, JUST LIKE THEY DO IN SERE SCHOOL. AROUND THIS TIME COMMANDER HILL SPOKE TO GENERAL MILLER AND DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT A DEBATE WAS OCCURRING OVER THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL OF THE TECHNIQUES. IN FACT, CITF'S CONCERNS MADE THEIR WAY UP TO THEN NAVY GENERAL COUNSEL ALBERTO MORA IN A BATTLE OVER INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WAS BEING WAGED AT SENIOR LEVELS IN THE PENTAGON. ON JANUARY 3rd, 2003, THREE DAYS AFTER THEY CONDUCTED THE TRAINING, THE SERE INSTRUCTORS MET WITH MAJOR GENERAL MILLER. ACCORDING TO SOME WHO ATTENDED, GENERAL MILLER STATED HE DID NOT WANT HIS INTERROGATORS USING THE TECHNIQUES THAT THE NAVY SERE INSTRUCTORS HAD DEMONSTRATED. THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE TRAINING HAD ALREADY OCCURRED AND NOT ALL THE INTERROGATORS WHO ATTENDED THE TRAINING GOT THE MESSAGE. TWO WEEKS EARLIER ON DECEMBER 20, 2002, ALBERTO MORA, WHO IS A WITNESS HERE TODAY, HAD MET WITH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL JIM HAYNES. IN A MEMO DESCRIBING THAT MEETING, MR. MORA SAYS HE TOLD MR. HAYNES THAT HE THOUGHT THAT INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON DECEMBER 2, 2002, QUOTE, COULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF TORTURE, CLOSED QUOTE. HE ASKED HIM, QUOTE, WHAT DID DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT AND AUDITORY STIMULI MEAN? COULD A DETAINEE BE LOCKED IN A COMPLETELY DARK CELL AND FOR HOW LONG? A MONTH? LONGER? WHAT EXACTLY DID THE AUTHORITY TO EXPLOIT PHOBIAS PERMIT. COULD PHOBIAS BE APPLIED. CLOSED QUOTE. ON JANUARY 9th, ALBERTO MORA MET WITH JIM HAYNES AGAIN. THIS IS 2003 NOW. ACCORDING TO HIS MEMO, MORA EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION THAT THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORIZATION HAD NOT BEEN REVOKED, AND TOLD HAYNES THAT THE POLICIES COULD THREATEN SECRETARY RUMSFELD'S TENURE AND EVEN DAMAGE THE PRESIDENCY. ON JANUARY 15, 2003, HAVING GOTTEN NO WORD THAT THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN, MORA DELIVERED A DRAFT MEMO TO HAYNES'S OFFICE STATING, QUOTE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED CATEGORY TWO AND ALL OF THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES WERE VIOLATIVE AND THEY CONSTITUTED AT A MINIMUM CRUCIAL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT AND AT WORST TORTURE, CLOSED QUOTE. IN A PHONE CALL MORA TOLD HAYNES HE WOULD BE SIGNING THAT MEMO LATER THAT DAY UNLESS HE HEARD DEFINITIVELY THAT THE USE OF THE TECHNIQUES WAS BEING SUSPENDED. IN A MEETING THAT SAME DAY, HAYNES RETURNED THE DRAFT MEMO AND TOLD MORA THE SECRETARY WOULD RESCIND THE TECHNIQUES WHICH THE SECRETARY DID THAT DAY. DAY; JANUARY 15, 2003. AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE SECRETARY DID THAT, HE DIRECTED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT HAS ALREADY BECOME WELL KNOWN. FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THE JUDGMENTS OF SENIOR MILITARY AND CIVILIAN LAWYERS CRITICAL OF LEGAL ARPGGUMENTS SUPPORTING AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WERE REJECTED IN FAVOR OF A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSELS, JOHN YOU. THE YOU OPINION, THE FINAL VERSION OF WHICH WAS DATED MARCH 14, 2003, WAS REQUESTED BY JIM HAYNES AND REPEAT MUCH OF WHAT THE FIRST BIBEY MEMO SAID SIX MONTHS EARLIER. MR. MORA WHO WAS ONE OF THE, WOULDING GROUP PARTICIPANTS SAID SOON AFTER THE WORKING GROUP WAS ESTABLISHED, IT BECAME EVIDENCE THAT THE GROUP'S REPORT, QUOTE, WOULD CONTAIN PROFOUND MISTAKES IN ITS LEGAL ANALYSIS, IN LARGE MEASURE BECAUSE OF ITS RELIANCE ON THE FLAWED OLC MEMO, CLOSED QUOTE. IN A MEETING WITH YOU, MORA ASKED WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ALLOWED TO GO SO FAR AS TO ORDER TORTURE. EWE RESPONDED YES. THE AUGUST BIBEY MEMO SAID TO VIOLET THE TORTURE STATUTE, PHYSICAL PAIN THAT RESULTED FROM AN ACT WOULD HAVE TO BE, QUOTE, EQUIVALENT IN INTENSITY TO THE PAIN ACCOMPANYING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY SUCH AS ORGAN FAILURE, IMPAIRMENT OF BODILY FUNCTION OR EVEN DEATH. JOHN EWE'S MARCH 14th, 203 MEMO STATED CRIMINAL LAWS SUCH AS THE FEDERAL ANTI TORTURE STATUTE WOULD NOT EVEN APPLY TO CERTAIN MILITARY INTERROGATIONS, AND THAT INTERROGATORS COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR USING INTERROGATION METHODS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE VIOLATE THE LAW. ONE CI LAWYER REPORTEDLY CALLED THE BIBEY MEMO A GOLDEN SHIELD. COMBINING IT WITH THE EWE MEMO, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTED TO CREATE A SHIELD TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD ANYONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CONDUCT. ULTIMATELY, THE WORKING GROUP REPORT FINALIZED IN APRIL OF '03 INCLUDED A NUMBER OF TECHNIQUES THAT WERE LEGAL ACCORDING TO EWE'S ANALYSIS. THE FULL STORY OF WHERE THEY GOT THE TECHNIQUES REMAINS CLASSIFIED. HOWEVER, THE LIST ITSELF REFLECTS THE INFLUENCE OF SERE, REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, PROLONGED STANDING, SLEEP DEPRIVATION, DIETARY MANIPULATION, HOODING, INCREASING ANXIETY THROUGH THE USE OF A DETAINEE'S AVERSIONS LIKE DOGS, AND FACE AND STOPMACH SLAPS WERE ALL RECOMMENDED. TOP MILITARY LAWYERS AND SERVICE GENERAL COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THESE TECHNIQUES AS THE REPORT WAS BEING DRAFTED. THOSE WHO HAD OBJECTED, LIKE NAVY GENERAL COUNSEL ALBERTO MORA WERE SIMPLY EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS AND NOT EVEN TOLD A FINAL REPORT HAD BEEN ISSUED. ON OCTOBER 16, 2003, LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE WORKING GROUP COMPLETED ITS REPORT, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZED THE USE OF 24 SPECIFIC INTERROGATIONS, INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES FOR USE AT GET MO. WHILE THE AUTHORIZATION INCLUDED SUCH TECHNIQUES AS DIETARY MANIPULATION, ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION AND SLEEP ADJUSTMENT, IT WAS SILENT ON MOST OF THE TECHNIQUES IN THE WORKING GROUP REPORT. HOWEVER, THE SECRETARY'S MEMO SAID THAT, QUOTE, IF IN YOUR VIEW YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES FOR A PARTICULAR DETAINEE, YOU SHOULD PROVIDE ME VIA THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF A WRITTEN REQUEST DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUE, RECOMMENDING SAFEGUARDS AND THE RATIONALE FOR APPLYING IT WITH AN IDENTIFIED DETAINEE. HOW DID SERE TECHNIQUES MAKE THEIR WAY TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ? SHORTLY AFTER THE SECRETARY APPROVED JIM HAYNES'S RECOMMENDATION ON DECEMBER 2, 2002, THE TECHNIQUES AND THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY HAD AUTHORIZED THEM BECAME KNOWN TO INTERROGATORS IN AFGHANISTAN. A COPY OF THE SECRETARY'S MEMO WAS SENT FROM GET MO TO AFGHANISTAN. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE INTELLIGENCE SECTION AT BELL GRAEM IN AFGHANISTAN SAID IN JANUARY OF '03 SHE SAW IN AFGHANISTAN A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION LISTING THE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY ON DECEMBER 2, 2002. DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWS ALSO INDICATE THAT THE INFLUENCE OF THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL OF AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES SURVIVED THEIR JANUARY 15, 2003 RESCISSION. ON JANUARY 24th, 2003, NINE DAYS AFTER SECRETARY RUMSFELD'S RESCISSION, THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE FOR CJTF 180, SEN COME'S CONVENTIONAL SOURCES IN AFGHANISTAN PRODUCED AN INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES MEMO. WHILE THAT MEMO REMAINS CLASSIFIED, THE UNCLASSIFIED VERSION OF A REPORT BY MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE FAY STATED THAT THE CJTF 180 MEMO, QUOTE, RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, A TECHNIQUE THAT HAD BEEN IN SECRETARY -- THE SECRETARY'S DECEMBER 2 AUTHORIZATION AND DISCUSSED EXPLOITING ARAB FEAR OF DOGS, ANOTHER TECHNIQUE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY ON DECEMBER 2nd, 2002. FROM AFGHANISTAN THE TECHNIQUES MADE THEIR WAY TO IRAQ. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IRAQ WAR, THE SPECIAL UNIT FORCES IN IRAQ, QUOTE, USED A JANUARY 2003 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE WHICH HAD BEEN DEVELOPED FOR OPERATION INS AFGHANISTAN. ACCORDING TO THE DODIJ, THE AFGHANISTAN STAFF -- STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE HAD BEEN, QUOTE, INFLUENCED, BY THE COUNTERRESISTANCE MEMORANDUM THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2, 2002, AND INCORPORATED TECHNIQUES DESIGNED FOR DETAINEES WHO WERE IDENTIFIED AS UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. SUBSEQUENT BATTLEFIELD INTERROGATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES INCLUDED TECHNIQUES SUCH AS YELLING, LOUD MUSIC AND LIGHT CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION, SLEEP DEPRIVATION, STRESS POSITIONS, 20-HOUR INTERROGATIONS AND CONTROLLED FEAR, MUZZLED DOGS, CLOSED QUOTE. SPECIAL MISSION UNIT TECHNIQUES EVENTUALLY MADE THEIR WAY IN THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ISSUED FOR ALL U.S. FORCES IN IRAQ. THE INTERROGATION OFFICER IN CHARGE AT ABU GHRAIB OBTAINED A COP OI TESTIFY SPECIAL MISSION UNIT INTERROGATION POLICY AND SUBMITTED IT VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED TO HER CHAIN OF COMMAND AS PROPOSED POLICY FOR THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN IRAQ LED AT THE TIME BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARLOS SANCHEZ. ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2003, GENERAL SANCHEZ ISSUED THE FIRST COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE SEVEN INTERROGATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. THAT PROCEDURE AUBLTH RICED INTERROGATORS IN IRAQ TO USE STRESS POSITIONS, VIRNLTAL MANIPULATION, SLEEP MANAGEMENT AND MILITARY WORKING DOGS TO EXPLOIT DETAINEES' FEARS IN INTERROGATION. IN REPORT OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO ABU GHRAIB, MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE FAYE SAID INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED FORGET MO BECAME, QUOTE, CONFUSED, AND WERE IMPLEMENTED AT ABU GHRAIB. HE SAID REMOVAL OF CLOTHING WHILE NOT INCLUDED IN CJTF 7'S PROCEDURES WAS IMPORTED TO ABU GHRAIB AND COULD BE TRACED, QUOTE, THROUGH AFGHANISTAN AND GET MO, CLOSED QUOTE, AND CONTRIBUTED TO AN ENVIRONMENT AT ABU GHRAIB THAT APPEARED TO, QUOTE, CONDONE DEPRAVITY AND DEGRADATION RATHER THAN HUMANE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES, CLOSED QUOTE. FOLLOWING A SEPTEMBER 9th, 2004 COMMITTEE HEARING ON HIS REPORT, I ASKED MAJOR GENERAL FAYE WHETHER THE POLICY APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON DECEMBER 2nd, 2002, CONTRIBUTEED TO THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES AT ABU GHRAIB AND HE RESPONDED YES. NOT ONLY DID SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING TECHNIQUES MAKE THEIR WAY TO IRAQ, BUT INSTRUCTORS FROM JPRA'S SERE SCHOOL FOLLOWED. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2003 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMANDER OF THE SPECIAL MISSION UNIT TASK FORCE, JPRA DEPLOYED A TEAM TO IRAQ TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO INTERROGATION OPERATIONS. DURING THAT TRIP, SERE INSTRUCTORS WERE AUTHORIZEED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES IN. U.S. MILITARY CUSTODY. ACCOUNTS OF THAT TRIP WILL BE EXPLORED AT LATER TIME. I'LL BE SENDING A LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ASKING THOSE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO JPRA'S INTERROGATION RELATED ACTIVITIES BE DECLASSIFIED. MAJOR GENERAL JAMES SOL GAN THE JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF, THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY'S HIGHER HEADQUARTERS ISSUED A MEMORANDUM REFERRING JPRA'S SUPPORT TO INTERROGATION OPERATIONS. SOL LA GAN WROTE, QUOTE, RECENT RECESSED FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND COMBAT TANT COMMANDS HAVE SOLICITED JPRA SUPPORT BASED ON KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION GAINED THROUGH THE DEBRIEFING, FORMER U.S.P.O.W.'S AND DETAINEES -- THESE REQUESTS WHICH CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS OFFENSIVE SUPPORT, HE SAID, GO BEYOND THE CHARTERED RESPONSIBILITIES OF JPRA. THE USE OF RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATION KNOWLEDGE FOR OFFENSIVE PURPOSES LIES OUTSIDE THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF JPRA. LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT WAGNER, THE DEPUTY COMMANDER HAS LIKEWISE SAID THAT, QUOTE, RELATIVE TO INTERROGATION CAPABILITY, THE EXPERTISE OF JPRA LIES IN TRAINING PERSONNEL HOW TO RESPOND AND RESIST INTERROGATION, NOT IN HOW TO CONDUCT INTERROGATIONS. REQUESTS FOR JPRA INTERROGATION SUPPORT WERE BOTH INCONSISTENT WITH THE UNIT'S CHARTER AND MIGHT CREATE CONDITIONS WHICH TASK JPRA TO ENGAGE IN OFFENSIVE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF JPRA'S DEFENSIVE MISSION. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT COMPLETED IN AUGUST OF '06 SAID THAT THE TECHNIQUES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN HAD DERIVED IN THE PART FROM JPRA AND SERE. MANY HAVE QUESTIONED WHY WE SHOULD CARE TABT RIGHTS OF DETAINEES. ON MAY 10th, 2007, GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. IN A LETTER TO HIS TROOPS. THIS IS WHAT GENERAL PETRAEUS WROTE. OUR VALUES AND THE LAWS GOVERNING WARFARE TEACH US TO RESPECT HUMAN DIGNITY, MAINTAIN OUR INTEGRITY AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. ADHERENCE TO OUR VALUES DISTINGUISHES US FROM OUR ENEMY. THIS FIGHT DEPENDS ON SECURING THE POPULATION WHICH MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE, NOT OUR ENEMIES, OCCUPY THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. AND HE CONTINUED. I FULLY APPRECIATE THE EMOTIONS THAT ONE EXPERIENCES IN IRAQ. I ALSO KNOW FIRSTHAND THE BONDS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE CLOSE FIGHT. SEEING A FELLOW TROOPER KILLED BY A BARBARIC ENEMY CAN SPARK FRUSTRATION, ANGER AND A DESIRE FOR IMMEDIATE REVENGE. AS HARD AS IT MIGHT BE, HOWEVER, WE MUST NOT LET THESE EMOTIONS LEAD US OR OUR COMRADES IN ARMS TO COMMIT HASTY ILLEGAL ACTIONS. IN THE EVENT WE WITNESS OR HEAR OF SUCH ACTIONS WE MUST NOT LET OUR BONDS PREVENT US FROM SPEAKING UP. SOME MIGHT ARGUE THAT WE WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IF WE SANCTIONS TORTURE OR OTHER EXPEDIENT METHODS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE ENEMY. THEY WOULD BE WRONG. BEYOND THE BASIC FACT THAT SUCH ACTIONS ARE ILLEGAL, HISTORY SHOWS THEY ARE NEITHER USEFUL NOR NECESSARY. HE CONCLUDED, WE ARE, INDEED, WARRIORS. WE TRAIN TO KILL OUR ENEMIES. WE ARE ENGAGED IN COMBAT. WE MUST 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. WHILE WE ARE WARRIORS WE ARE ALSO ALL HUMAN BEINGS. SENATOR WARNER HAS ASKED SENATOR GRAHAM TO BE THE ACTING RANKING MEMBER TODAY, I BELIEVE.
00:43:11 Warner, John THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. SENATOR GRAHAM IS A FULL COLONEL IN THE JAG CORPS, THE UNITED STATES MILITARY RESERVE. I COLLABORATED WITH HIM AND SENATOR McCAIN WHEN WE DID THE DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT. AND I'VE ASKED AND SENATOR McCAIN JOINED IN THIS, THAT HE REPRESENT OUR SIDE AS THE RANKING HERE THIS MORNING AND THROUGHOUT THE CONTEXT OF THESE HEARINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN THAT WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS SAGS ON THE CONTEXT IN THE AFTERMATH OF 9/11. WHEN THIS COUNTRY WAS STRUGGLING TO COME TO A FULL RECOGNITION ABOUT OUR VUL NEXT TO ATTACKS SUCH AS WE EXPERIENCE ON THAT FATEFUL DAY, AND I THINK MEN AND WOMEN OF -- IN UNIFORM AS WELL AS IN THE CIVILIAN COMMUNITY DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO TRY AND PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR GREAT NATION, A NATION THAT IS FOUNDED UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, AND THERE SHALL BE NO DEVIATION FROM THAT. I ALSO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER YOU RECEIVED FROM THE COMMITTEE AND THE COUNSEL FROM ONE OF THE WITNESSES TODAY. IN YOUR REPLY YOU SAID ON THOSE RARE OCCASIONS WHEN A WITNESS BELIEVED HE OR SHE SHOULD NOT ANSWER A QUESTION WITHOUT DIVULGING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THE WITNESS HAS SO INFORMED THE COMMITTEE. COULD THE CHAIR ADVISE THE COMMITTEE HOW WE WILL AVAIL OURSELVES OF SUCH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT THE WITNESSES MAY SES AT THE SAME TIME PROTECTING THEM?
00:44:51 Levin, Carl OF COURSE, WE HAVE -- WOULD REQUEST, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, THAT INFORMATION BE DECLASSIFIED, BUT WE CANNOT RECEIVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THIS HEARING.
00:44:59 Warner, John ABSOLUTELY. I SEE. WELL, LET'S ALSO REFLECT ON THE FACT THAT IN APRIL 2004 THROUGH 2006 THIS COMMITTEE RECOGNIZING THERE WESTBOUND PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA CONDUCTED 17 HEARINGS AND BRIEFINGS WITH REGARD TO MILITARY DETAINEE ABUSE, MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND THE NEW HARM FIELD MANUAL. THAT WAS LARGELY OUT OF THE ABU GHRAIB. YOU AND I WORKED TOGETHER ON THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT LED TO THE DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT. SO I THINK THIS COMMITTEE HAS A LONG RECORD OF BOTH UNDER REPUBLICAN CONTROL AND DEMOCRATIC CONTROL TO EXAMINE THIS MATTER.
00:45:36 Levin, Carl IT IS AN IMPORTANT TRADITION. I'M GLAD YOU MADE REFERENCE TO IT, THAT THIS COMMITTEE CONDUCT THIS KIND OF OVERSIGHT HEARING. A AND IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR REFERENCE TO THAT EFFORT ON OUR PART. SENATOR GRAHAM?
00:45:55 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU TO THE WITNESSES FOR TESTIFYING FOR US TODAY. LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING I MADE IT CLEAR A LONG TIME AGO THAT I BELIEVED ADMINISTRATION LAWYERS USED BIZARRE LEGAL THEORIES TO JUSTIFY HARSH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
00:46:18 Graham, Lindsey I'VE ALSO BEEN TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT THEY IMPLEMENTED THESE PROCEDURES OVER THE STRENUOUS OBJECTIONS OF MILITARY LAWYERS AND MANY OTHERS WITH EXPERTISE IN THESE AREAS I THINK OUR MILITARY COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY OUR LEGAL COMMUNITY, MR. CHAIRMAN, HAS BEEN SAYING WHAT ABOUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT. I DON'T DOUBT FOR ONE MOMENT WHAT AL QAEDA WILL DO TO ANYONE THEY CAPTURE WEARING OUR UNIFORM. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. WE KNOW WHAT THEY DO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I SAW A VIDEO LAST NIGHT OF A TALIBAN GROUP SHOWING A 14-YEAR-OLD ABOUT TO SLIT THE THROAT OF ONE OF THEIR CAPTIVES. OBVIOUSLY THE VIDEO DID NOT GO TO CONCLUSION. BUT THAT IS A BIT ABOUT WHO WE'RE FIGHTING. AND THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE BEAT THESE PEOPLE I WOULD ARGUE THAT ANY TIME WE CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNIQUES THAT GO DOWN THEIR ROAD, WE'RE EMPOWERING THEM AND MARGINALIZING. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY IS IMPORTANT. THE GUIDANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME I THINK WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS SOME OF THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE, AND SHORTSIGHTED LEGAL ANALYSIS EVER PROVIDED TO OUR NATION'S MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MEMBERS OF ADMINISTRATION WHO PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN DEVELOPING INTERROGATION POLICIES WERE MOTIVATED BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DESIRE TO PROTECT OUR NATION. I KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE, THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN IN QUESTION FELT AMERICA WAS UNDER ATTACK, AND WE WERE, AND THEY WERE MOTIVATED TO PROTECT THE NATION. THAT TO ME IS CLEAR. AND IN THAT REGARD THEIR SERVICE IS TO BE APPRECIATED. HOWEVER, IF THE ADMINISTRATION ADHERED TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW, OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS, AND ADEQUATELY CONSULTED WITH CONGRESS, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE HERE TODAY. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE HIGH GROUND IN THIS WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. THE HIGH GROUND IS OFTEN A MILITARY TERM USED WHERE THE ADVANTAGE TO THOSE OCCUPYING THE HIGH GROUND IS CLEAR, AND THOSE BELOW ARE IN A VERY PRECARIOUS SITUATION. IN THIS WAR, THERE IS NO CAPITAL TO CONQUER, TO AIR FORCE TO SHOOT DOWN, NO NAVY TO SEEP. THE HIGH GROUND IN THIS WAR AGAINST RADICAL ISLAMIC EXTREMISM IS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONCUR THIS ENEMY ON A BATTLEFIELD. THERE WILL BE NO SURRENDER WITH A WHITE FLAG. IT IS TRULY A BATTLE OF IDEAS AND VALUES AND THE ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY REPRESENT A LOST OPPORTUNITY IN THIS WAR. I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY OUTLINE WHERE WE WERE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE TRAGIC EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11th AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN TERMS OF THE INTERROGATION, DETENTION AND TRIAL OF ENEMY COMBATANTS FORWARD CRIMES. LET'S FACE THE COLD, HARD FACTS. ON SEPTEMBER 10th, 2001, AMERICA WAS UNPREPARED. WE WERE NOT READY TO FIGHT AN ENEMY THAT CLAIMED NO COUNTRY AND WORE NO UNIFORM. WE WEREN'T READY TO CAPTURE, DETAIN AND INTERROGATE TERROR SUSPECTS WHO REPRESENT NO NATION STATE AND INDISCRIMINATELY KILL CIVILIANS AND ASSOCIATED YEARS ALIKE. AFTER WE INVADED IRAQ, WE UNDERESTIMATED THE THREAT OF AN INTUR GENESEE AND WERE SLOW TO ADAPT THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND. WE WERE I'LL EQUIPPED TO MANAGE ABU GHRAIB AND PERPLEXED BY WHAT TO DO WITH UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. I DON'T USE THE LACK OF PREPARATION AS AN EXCUSE, BUT RATHER THE CONTEXT IN WHICH A SERIES OF POOR DECISIONS WERE MADE AT THE PENTAGON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE WHITE HOUSE RESPECTED DETAINEES. TO THE GREAT REGRET OF MANY OF US, THE ADMINISTRATION PURSUED AGO-IT-ALONE STRATEGY WHEN IT CAME TO THE TREATMENT AND DETENTION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS. UNDER THE RUBIC OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S INHERENT AUTHORITY IN A TIME OF WAR, AND ARMED WITH THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE WHICH CONGRESS PASSED IN THE DAYS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11th, THE ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTED POLICIES THAT WERE DRAFTED, IMPLEMENTED, REVISED AND RESCINDED AND REISSUED IN AN ENDLESS LOOP. INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LIMITED TO THE GUANTANAMO BAY MAY HAVE MIGRATED TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. THE KAI OS WAS FUELED BY THE LAWYERS DECISION TO IGNORE THE ADVICE OF OUR MILITARY LEADERS AN LAWYERS, THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND THE GENEVA CON SENSES. IT'S HARD TO FATHOM OUR NATION AND WORLD WOULD HAVE TO HEAR THE UNITED STATES DISCUSS DOCUMENTS LIKE THE TORTURE MEMO. EVENTUALLY DEPARTMENT TOUR FROM THE TIME HONORED STANDARD OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THEIR WELL KNOWN RULES OF RESTRAINT WERE SET -- WHICH CONFUSED THE ALLEGED DETAINEES ABUSE WAS THE UNFORTUNATE RESULT. THIS AT ABU GHRAIB WAS NOT JUST A FEW BAD APPLES. CLEARLY THEY WERE PEOPLE ACTING ON THEIR OWN INAPPROPRIATELY IN A VERY PERVERSE FASHION REGARDING DETAINEES. BUT I THINK IT IS BEST TO SAY THAT ABU GHRAIB WAS A RESULT OF SYSTEM FAILURE. MR. HAYNES WHO WILL COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY WROTE IN AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT THAT WATERBOARDING MAY BE LEGALLY AVAILABLE TO THE MILITARY. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT IT IS CLEARLY PROHIBITED UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. AS A PERSONAL ASIDE, MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE OF THE GREAT CONCERNS I'VE HAD ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS THE LEGAL EXPOSURE THAT YOU PLACE MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM IF THEY GO DOWN THIS ROAD. THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO THE GUIDELINES AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THOSE IN UNIFORM REGARDING DETAINEES. WE HAVE A VERY CLEAR POLICY OF NON-ABUSE. WHY? GENERAL PETRAEUS SAID IT BETTER THAN I COULD. WE'RE TRYING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM OUR ENEMY AND I REGRET THE FACT THAT SOME OF OUR MILITARY MEMBERS WERE GIVING ADVICE THAT WOULD EXPOSE THEM TO PROSECUTION IF THEY HAD FOLLOWED THAT ADVICE. THE FINAL REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERROGATION CONVENED BY MR. HAYNES REITERATED AN OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO MANAGE A MILITARY CAMPAIGN, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TORTURE MUST BE CONSTRUED AS INAPPROPRIATE PLIKABLE TO INTERROGATIONS UNDERTAKEN TO THE -- I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THESE TREATIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORETURE SIGNED BY RONALD REAGAN HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY AND THE WORLD WELL AND WOULD WE SIT ON THE SIDELINES IF SOME EXECUTIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY SAID I HAVE THE INHERENT AUTHORITY BECAUSE MY NATION IS AT RISK, TO SET THIS TREATY ASIDE. WOULD WE OBJECT IF SOME AIRMAN WERE IN THE HANDS OF A NATION STATE AND THE EXECUTIVE OF THAT NATION SAID, EVEN THOUGH I SIGNED UP FOR THE GENEVA CON SENSE I BELIEVE I HAVE THE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO PROTECT MY PEOPLE TO SET IT ASIDE IN THIS CASE. IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, THE LAW MEANS NOTHING. REGARDING DETENTION AND PROSECUTION OF DETAINEES WE FOLLOW A SIMILAR PATTERN. I FOUGHT FOR YEARS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENSURE THE POLICIES IMPLEMENTED FOR DETERMINING WHO IS AN ENEMY COMBATANT AND WHO SHOULD BE TRIED FORWARD CRIMES FOLLOWED THE LAW. HERE THE ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO PLAY CUTE WITH LAWS. I REMEMBER VIVIDLY THE INITIAL MILITARY COMMISSION'S ACT WOULD ALLOW THE MILITARY JURY TO RECEIVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NEVER SHARED WITH THE ACCUSED. IT COULD BE SHARED WITH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY BUT NOT PROVIDED TO THE ACCUSED ON THE THEORY THAT IT WOULD COMPROMISE NATIONAL SECURITY. MY BELIEF HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHAT WOULD WE DO IN A TRIAL IN SOME FOREIGN LAND WITH A CIA AGENT OR A MILITARY MEMBER OF OUR SPECIAL FORCES OR A DOWNED AIRMAN WHERE THE TRIAL WENT FORWARD AND THE JURY OR THE EQUIVALENT THEREOF WAS PROVIDED INFORMATION REGARDING THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF THE AMERICAN IN QUESTION, AND THEY WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE CHARGED WITH? OR TO BE ABLE TO CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE, WHAT WOULD WE DO? I THINK WE WOULD OBJECT. THE CONGRESS WAS LATE IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY IN THESE MATTERS, BUT THE KEY POINT IS THAT WE EVENTUALLY DID. THE PASSAGE OF THE McCAIN AMENDMENT ENSURED THAT THIS NATION WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT CONSTITUTED CRUEL AND HUMANE OR DEGRADING TREATMENT. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOUGHT SENATOR McCAIN ON THE PROHIBITION BUT CONGRESS PASSED IT OVERWHELMINGLY. THE McCAIN AMENDMENT STARTED PUTTING US BACK ON THE ROAD TO UPHOLDING THE BEST TRADITIONS OF OUR NATION IN RESTORING OUR STANDING IN THE WORLD. IN THE SAME BILL, THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL BECAME THE STANDARD FOR ALL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTERROGATIONS. WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE MILITARY COMMISSION ACT WE HAVE ENSURED THAT ALL OF OUR INTERROGATIONS ARE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, COMMON ARTICLE THREE OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THE WAR CRIMES STATUTE. THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT PUT IN PLACE PROCEDURES THAT OUR NATION CAN BE PROUD OF WHEN IT COMES TO PROSECUTING DETAINEES FORWARD CRIMES. I DEEPLY REGRET THE SUPREME COURT RULING PROVIDING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED CITIZEN TERRORIST SUSPECTS. I THINK THIS IS A VERY BAD SITUATION DECISION FOR AMERICA. I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE DEEPLY DISTURBED TO LEARN THAT KHALID SHAKE MOHAMMED HAS THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADDS THEY DO. AS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ARGUED IN HIS DECENTING OPINION, SO WHO IS HAS WON? NOT THE DETAINEES. THE COURT EARS ANALYSIS LEADS THEM WITH ONLY THE PROSPECT OF FUTURE LITIGATION TO DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THEIR NEW HABEAS RIGHT FOLLOWED BY FURTHER LITIGATION TO RESOLVE THE PARTICULAR CASES FOLLOWED BY FURTHER LITIGATION BY THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT, WHERE THEY COULD HAVE STARTED HAD THEY INVOKED THE DETAINEE TREATMENT PROCEDURE, NOT CONGRESS WHOSE ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THROUGH DEMOCRATIC MEANS HOW BEST TO BALANCE THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THE DETAINEE'S LIBERTY INTEREST HAS BEEN UNCEREMONIOUSLY BRUSHED ASIDE, NOT THE GREAT WRIT WHOSE MAGESTY IS HARDLY ENHANCEED TO A QUIRK KI OUTPOST WITH NO TANGIBLE BENEFIT TO ANYONE, NOT THE RULE OF LAW, UNLESS BY THAT IT IS MEANT THE RULE OF LAWYERS WHO WILL HAVE A GREATER ROLE THAN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS IN SHAPING POLICY FOR ALIEN ENEMY COMBATANTS. AND CERTAINLY NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO TODAY LOSE A BIT MORE CONTROL OVER THE CONDUCT OF THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY TO UNELECTED POLITICALLY UNACCOUNTABLE JUDGES. UNFORTUNATELY THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT WANT TO GIVE THE DETAINEES AN INCH. CONGRESS EVENTUALLY GAVE THEM A FEW HUNDRED YARDS. NOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN THEM MILES. WE HAVE GONE FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER. AS LONG AS THESE INVESTIGATIONS GO ON, I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIND MISTAKES AND UNCOVER MORE POOR POLICY DECISIONS. BUT THE OVERRIDING QUESTION IS, HAVE WE LEARNED FROM OUR MISTAKES? ARE WE ALL MOVING FORWARD ON A SOLID BASIS? THE ANSWER IN MY OPINION IS YES. THE FACT THAT THE POLICY DECISIONS WERE BASED ON INADEQUATE ANALYSIS USED TO JUSTIFY HARSH TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IS NOT NEW NEWS TO ME. I DON'T THINK IT IS NEW NEWS TO ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE OR ANYONE WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE REVISE ODD -- REVIEWED ANY OF THE 15 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR THE NUMEROUS HEARINGS HELD IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE. THIS COMMITTEE ALONE HAS HAD 17 SEPARATE BRIEFINGS AND HEARINGS ON DETAINEE ABUSES. SENATOR WARNER IS TO BE COMMENDED TO MAKING THE DECISION DECISION TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE FOULLY INVESTIGATE THE ABU GHRAIB PEOPLE SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD WILL KNOW WHEN THIS COUNTRY MAKES MISTAKES IT DOESN'T HIDE FROM THEM OR COVER THEM UP. SO RESPECTFULLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE NOT BREAKING NEW GROUND HERE. THE ABUSES, INCONSISTENTCYINCONSISTENCIES, PATTERN OF POOR JUDGMENT IN THESE MATTERS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY, THE FACT IS WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. SECRETARY RUMSFELD IS GONE. WOLFOWITZ, CAM BONE AND FITH ARE ALL GONE. JOHN EWE AND JIM HAYNES ARE GONE. I LOOK FORWARD TO A HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY. I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO PROTECT OUR NATION THAT RECOGNIZES EVEN THOUGH WE'RE AT WAR, WE MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAWS AND THE TREATIES THAT MAKE OUR NATION STRONG. AS TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE. I THINK THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN WELL SERVED BY THESE HEARINGS, AND THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR MISTAKES AND WE HAVE MADE ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDINGLY. IN THAT REGARD THE CONGRESS HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND MADE US A STRONGER NATION.
01:00:44 Levin, Carl THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR GRAHAM. YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A MILITARY LAWYER IS AN INVALUABLE RESOURCE FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND FOR THE COUNTRY. WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOU AND FOR IT. OUR FIRST PANEL TODAY CONSISTS OF MR. RICHARD SHIFFRIN WHO IS THE FORMER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR INTELLIGENCE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. RETIRED LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAN BAUMGARTNER, THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY, JPRA, AND DR. JERRY OGRISSEG, FORMER CHIEF OF PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES AT THE U.S. AIR FORCE SURVIVAL SCHOOL. AND I THINK, MR. SHIFFRIN, YOU ARE GOING TO GO FIRST FOLLOWED BY MR. BAUMGARTNER AND THEN DR. OGRISSEG, IF YOU HAVE OPENING STATEMENTS WE WOULD WELCOME THEM AT THIS TIME. MR. SHIFFRIN.
01:01:45 Shiffrin, Richard MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I DO NOT HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT. I AM HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND WILL DO MY BEST TO RECALL EVENTS THAT
01:01:58 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. MR. SHIFFRIN. NEXT WE WOULD CALL UPON RETIRED LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAN BAUMGARTNER.
01:02:07 Baumgartner, Daniel THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DO HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT. CHAIRMAN LEVIN, SENATOR GRAHAM AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY AT THIS HEARING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE RELATIVE TO INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES FOR USE WITH DETAINEE DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY. I'M CURRENTLY THE ACTING DIRECTOR, SENIOR ANALYST PERSONAL RECOVERY POLICY IN THE DEFENSE PRISONER OF WAR, PERSONNEL RECOVERY DIRECTOR -- I SERVED AS ACTIVE DUTY FROM 1979 TO 2003 AND IN 1990 I WAS ASSIGNED TO THE AIR FORCE SURVIVAL SCHOOL. FROM THEN UNTIL MY RETIREMENT I SERVED IN A VARIETY OF CAPACITIES INVOLVING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL RECOVERY MISSION. MY FINAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE '98 UNTIL MAY OF 2003 WAS AS CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY, JPRA. IT'S THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL RECOVERY MISSION. PESH NELL RECOVERY MISSION INVOLVES A SUM OF MILITARY, CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO -- UNITED STATES PERSONNEL WHO BECOME SEPARATED FROM THEIR ORGANIZATION WHILE PARTICIPATING IN A U.S. SPONSORED MILITARY ACTIVITY OR MISSION OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. AND WHO ARE OR MAY BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY MAY BE ISOLATED, BELEAGERED, DETAINED, CAPTURED OR HAVING TO EVADE, RESIST OR ESCAPE. IN THE ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE'S SPECIFIC REQUEST, I PROVIDED WRITTEN TESTIMONY ABOUT MY RECOLLECTION OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO INTERROGATORS PROVIDED BY JPRA PERSONNEL, THE JPRA COMMANDER AT THE TIME, MY BOSS, COLONEL RANDY MOLTEN HAD PROHIBITED JPRA PERSONNEL FROM BECOMING INVOLVED IN ACTUAL INTERROGATIONS OF DETAINEES. AS FAR SAYS KNOW, JPRA PERSONNEL DIDN'T PARTICIPATE ANY TIME TO PRIOR TO MY RETIREMENT. INTELLIGENCE CAME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT MIGHT APPLY TO DETAINEE QUESTIONING. WE SHARED THE INFORMATION WITH THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY BECAUSE THEIR DEBRIEFERS WOULD LIKE -- DIA ACCEPTED OUR OFFER TO PROVIDE BRIEFINGS. I MYSELF DID NOT APPLY DEBRIEFING PERSONALLY. I BELIEVE THEY RECEIVED BRIEFINGS CENTERED ON QUESTION TECHNIQUES AND GENERAL INFORMATION HOW EXPLOITATION WORKS. I WAS ALSO PERSONALLY PROVIDED A 30-MINUTE BRIEFING TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE LOCATED AT ST. BELVOIR WHICH WORKED UNDER THE UNDERSEK UNDERSECRETARY OF THE ARMY. THIS BRIEFING OCCURRED IN 2002. I PROVIDED INFORMATION ON RESISTANCE TECHNIQUES, QUESTIONING TECHNIQUES AND GENERAL INFORMATION ON HOW EXPLOITATION WORKS AND ALSO JPRA'S MISSION AND ROLE IN THE DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO BRIEFED ONE OTHER AGENCY. IN ADDITION TO THIS SIS IN THE APPROXIMATELY MID 2002, DR. MORGAN BANKS, THE DIRECTOR OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES AT FT. BRAGG REQUESTED JPRA PERSONNEL TRAVEL TO FT. BRAGG TO PROVIDE BRIEFINGS TO ARMY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL. THAT BRIEFING OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2002. I COORDINATED THE SUPPORT IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING AND OBLIGATING THE JPRA TO RESPOND TO DR. BANK'S REQUESTS. IT WAS DESIGNED TO ASSIST THE MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL ON WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO BE ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT GUANTANAMO BAY. TO MY BEST RECOLLECTION IT HAD -- WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL ISSUES MIGHT BE FOR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS OPERATING IN A CAPTIVITY ENVIRONMENT. I PROVIDED WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MY RECOLLECTION OF MY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO PERSONAL REFLEX, I I UNDERSTAND FROM REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS IN DECEMBER 20001, JPRA PROVIDED INFORMATION INVOLVING THE EXPLOITATION PROCESS AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON CAPTIVITY AND LESSONS LEARNED. THAT REQUEST CAME FROM MR. RICHARD SHIFFRIN. I DO RECALL THAT IN -- IN JULY 2002 MR. SHIFFRIN REQUESTED INFORMATION FROM JPRA. I PROVIDED PAPERS ON EXPLOITATION, INTERROGATION AND LESSON PLANS USED TO TRAIN OUR U.S. PERSONNEL IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF DEFENSE, EXPLOITATION, METHODS OF INTERROGATION AND RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATIONS. AFTER A FOLLOW-UP REQUEST AND FOR THE USE OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES, I PROVIDED THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH CONSISTED OF THE USE OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES AND OUR PERSONNEL RECOVERY TRAINING WITH INFORMATION COMPILED FROM JPRA EXPERTS AND ONE PAPER FROM THE AIR FORCE SERE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST CAPTAIN AND DR. JERRY OGRISSEG ON THE EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING. I FOLLOWED UP WITH HUNDRED OR TWO MORE PHONE CALLS TO MAKE SURI PROVIDED THE INFORMATION REQUESTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL. I DO NO RECALL ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AFTER THE SUMMER OF 2002. I THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS.
01:07:16 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. MR. OGRISSEG. DR. OGRISSEG, EXCUSE ME.
01:07:20 Ogrisseg, Jerald THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. BEFORE TESTIFYING, I WANT TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT ME. I RECEIVED MY BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE DEGREE FROM OHIO STATE UNIVERSE THE AND MY MASTER'S AND PhD DEGREES FROM BOWLING GREEN. I JOINED THE AIR FORCE IN 1995. I WENT THROUGH RESIDENCY TRAINING IN PSYCHOLOGY AT WILFORD HALL MEDICAL CENTER IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. I THEN SERVED AS A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST IN AIR FORCE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CLINICS AT LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE AND ON ZOOK KA IN CALIFORNIA. ON THOSE POSITIONS I PROVIDED A WIDE RANGE OF BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE S. I THEN SERVED AS THE SERE PSYCHOLOGIST FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SURVIVAL SCHOOL AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE IN WASHINGTON FROM THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 1999 TO 28 JULY, 2002. THERE WAS I WAS THE COMMANDERER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF TRAINING. MY PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRAINING BY PROVIDING RISK MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND CONDUCT RESEARCH TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS OF TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND TRAINING RISK. I SEPARATED FROM ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AT THE GRADE OF MAJOR IN 2002 TO ACCEPT A CIVILIAN PERSON WITH THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY. I SERVE CURRENTLY AS THE SERE RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST FOR THE JPRA WHERE I'VE BEEN ASSIGNED SINCE THE 29th OF JULY, 2002. IN THAT CAPACITY MY JOB IS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH, OPERATIONAL RELEASE HANDLING OF RECOVERED, RETURNED AND REPATRIATED U.S. PERSONNEL AND RECOMMEND POLICIES IN THESE AREAS. I PROVIDE EXPERT KNOWLEDGE IN BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION, LEARNING IN STRESSFUL ENVIRONMENTS, LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND LEARNING TO ENHANCE HUMAN RESILIANT SEE. I CHAIR AN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PANEL ON SURVIVAL PSYCHOLOGY THROUGH THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND PERFORMANCE GROUP OF THE TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES FELLOW SURVIVAL PSYCHOLOGISTS FROM AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
01:09:52 Levin, Carl LET ME START WITH YOU FIRST, MR. SHIFFRIN. WHEN YOU WERE THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR INTELLIGENCE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL JIM HAYNES ABOUT INTERROGATIONS IN THE SPRING OR SUMMER OF 2002. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR MIKE ON, PLEASE.
01:10:15 Shiffrin, Richard THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
01:10:18 Levin, Carl DID YOU TALK ABOUT SERE DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS?
01:10:23 Shiffrin, Richard MY RECOLLECTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE SPRING, LATE SPRING, EARLY SUMMER, I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH JIM HAYNES ABOUT WHERE EXPERTISE MIGHT LIE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON INTERROGATION. THE SENSE I HAD IN OTHERS WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAD BEEN OUT OF THIS BUSINESS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, AT LEAST SINCE THE VIETNAM WAR. AND THAT THERE WASN'T A SKILLED CAD RAY OF INVESTIGATOR INTERROGATORS OUTSIDE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTEXT, AFOSI, NCIS OR ARMY CID. I THINK THOSE FOLKS, AT LEAST ARMY CID WERE ALREADY BEING USED FOR THEIR EXPERTISE IN TRYING TO DEVELOP EFFECTIVE INTERROGATION METHODS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MR. HAYNES SUG STWREFTED TRYING TO CONTACT THE SERE JPRA FOLKS OR WHETHER -- AND I WAS AWARE OF JPRA THROUGH SOME OF MY OTHER WORK -- SAID, WELL, MAYBE THE FOLKS AT JPRA HAVE SOME INFORMATION. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SCHOLARLY PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT, AND PERHAPS THEY HAVE SOME.
01:11:50 Levin, Carl IS THAT WHAT HE SAID?
01:11:51 Shiffrin, Richard NO. I THINK I SAID -- AT LEAST THAT PART ABOUT FINDING HISTORICAL SCHOLARLY PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS, MEDICAL JOURNALS, PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS THAT MAY BE IN EXISTENCE, I ASSUMED THIS STUFF WAS STILL ACTIVELY BEING INVESTIGATED, ANALYZED, PURSUED BY PROFESSIONALS.
01:12:09 Levin, Carl WAS IT AFTER THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. HAYNES THAT YOU TALKED TO COLONEL BAUMGARTNER?
01:12:15 Shiffrin, Richard I DON'T REMEMBER WHO I CONTACTED AT ST. BELVOIR.
01:12:20 Levin, Carl DID YOU TALK WITH COLONEL BAUMGARTNER AFTER YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HAYNES?
01:12:25 Shiffrin, Richard I TALKED WITH SOMEONE AT JPRA, YES.
01:12:30 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS COLONEL BAUMGARTNER.
01:12:33 Shiffrin, Richard IT COULD BE.
01:12:35 Levin, Carl YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT THOSE REQUESTS YOU HAD AND THE CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS AT JPRA WERE BASED ON JIM HAYNES' REQUEST TO YOU? YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT?
01:12:45 Shiffrin, Richard I THINK THEY WERE INITIATED BY THAT. AS TO WHETHER SPECIFICALLY HE SAID CONTACT JPRA, I DON'T KNOW. HE MAY HAVE SAID, CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT.
01:12:57 Levin, Carl GOT YOU. WAS THIS EFFORT BECAUSE WAS SOME FRUSTRATION WITH THE LACK OF INTELLIGENCE THAT WAS COMING UP?
01:13:04 Shiffrin, Richard THAT'S THE SENSE I GOT, NOT JUST FROM THAT DISCUSSION, BUT IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS I WAS AT THAT I ATTENDED GENERALLY OF OUR OFFICE WHERE THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT PROGRESS OR LACK OF PROGRESS IN EXPLOITATION OF DETAINEES.
01:13:21 Levin, Carl COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU SAY MR. SHIFFRIN CALLED AND ASKED YOU IN JULY OF '02 FOR INFORMATION ON THE USE OF FISCAL PRESSURES IN SERE TRAINING? IS THAT CORRECT? YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY SAYS THAT.
01:13:34 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:13:36 Levin, Carl IN RESPONSE YOU SENT TO MR. SHIFFRIN A LIST OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES INCLUDING STRESS POSITIONS, WAULG, DEGRADATION, SENSORY DEPRIVATION AND WATERBOARDING. YOU SENT HIM A MEMO FROM DR. OGRISSEG ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
01:13:52 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:13:59 Levin, Carl IF YOU LOOK AT TAB TWO, WAS THAT YOUR MEMO? THAT YOU SENT TO THE GENERAL
01:14:10 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:14:12 Levin, Carl AND WAS ATTACHED TO THAT MEMO SOME ATTACHMENTS, THE ONES THAT APPEAR AT TABS THREE AND FOUR?
01:14:54 Baumgartner, Daniel THOSE TWO WERE TWO OF THE ATTACHMENTS.
01:14:56 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:15:01 Levin, Carl THE FIRST ATTACHMENT IN NUMBER THREE OH-- EXCUSE ME -- NUMBER FOUR WAS THE OGRISSEG MEMO THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM DR. OGRISSEG. IS THAT CORRECT?
01:15:11 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR. NUMBER FOUR WAS FROM DR. --
01:15:18 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. NOW, TAB THREE IS A MEMO ENTITLED PHYSICAL PRESSURES USED IN RESISTANCE TRAINING AND AGAINST AMERICAN PRISONERS AND DETAINEES. IS THAT CORRECT? THE.
01:15:33 Baumgartner, Daniel TALKING PAPER.
01:15:35 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:15:42 Levin, Carl NOW, IN YOUR PREPARED TESTIMONY TESTIMONY, -- LET ME TURN TO DR. OGRISSEG HERE.
01:16:04 Levin, Carl IN YOUR PREPARED TESTIMONY, DR. OGRISSEG, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID, WITH REGARDS TO THAT JULY 2002 COMMUNICATION WITH COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, CHO WAS THEN CHIEF OF STAFF FOR JPRA, IT WAS YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER CALLED YOU DIRECTLY, PROBABLY ON THE SAME DAY YOU GENERATED THAT JULY 24th, 2002 MEMORANDUM, INDICATED HE WAS GETTING ASKED, QUOTE, FROM ABOVE, ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING. YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS ASKING LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER FROM ABOVE AND DID NOT ASK HIM TO CLARIFY WHO TWUZ ASKING. YOU WERE CALLED REMINDING COLONEL BAUMGARTNER IN GENERAL TERMS ABOUT THE PROGRAM EVALUATION DATA YOU HAD PRESENTED AT THE SERE PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE, AND YOU ALSO INDICATED ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU TOLD COLONEL BAUMGARTNER THAT WATERBOARDING WAS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE STRESS INOCTOBER LAGS PARADIGM OF TRAINING WE USE, IT WAS MORE INDICATIVE OF A PRACTICE THAT PRODUCES LEARNED HELPLESSNESS, A TRAINING RESULT WE TRIED SFREN OUSLY TO AVOID. THE FINAL AREA I RECALL HIM ASKING ME ABOUT WERE MY THOUGHTS ON THE USE OF WATERBOARDING AGAINST THE ENEMY. YOUU RESPONDED B SAYAYG WOULDN'TT THAT B BILLEGA HEHEE P PLID TT SOMEE P PEOPLE W WERE ASNGNG FMM A AVEBOBOUT THE UTILY Y OF USING THISS TECHNIQUE AGAINST THENENEMY FOR THE SAM REASONS WOULDN'T USE I IT IN TRAINING. I REPLIED I WOULDN' GO DOWN THAT PATBEBECAUSE ASIDE FROM THE BEING ILLEGAL, IT WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARENA THAT WE IN SURVIVAL SCHOOL DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. IS THAT YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY?
01:17:48 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, THAT IS.
01:17:50 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
01:17:52 Levin, Carl COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
01:18:01 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR, I DO.
01:18:03 Levin, Carl IF YOU LOOK AT TAB FOUR, DR. OGRISSEG, YOU AGREE THAT IS YOUR MEMO?
01:18:08 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS MY MEMO.
01:18:09 Levin, Carl AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PURPOSE OF SERE TRAINING IS STRESS INOCTOBER LAGS OR BUILD UP IMMUNITIES OF AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL SO IF THEY SHOULD BE CAPTURED AND SUBJECT TO ILLEGAL AN ABUSIVE TREATMENT, THEY BE BETTER PREPARED TO RESIST. DURING THAT TRAINING, THAT IS,ERE TRAINING THERE ARE NUMEROUS SAFETY MEASURES IN PLACE TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT OUR PEOPLE WILL BE INJURED.
01:18:31 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
01:18:33 Levin, Carl ARE THE PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURES DESIGNED FOR USE IN SERE SCHOOL FOR USING STUDENTS INTENDED TO BE USED AGAINST DETAINEES TO OBTAIN INTELLIGENCE?
01:18:43 Ogrisseg, Jerald NO, MR. CHAIRMAN.
01:18:44 Levin, Carl WHY NOT?
01:18:48 Ogrisseg, Jerald THOSE TECHNIQUES ARE DERIVED FROM WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY HAPPENED TO OUR PERSONNEL WHO HAVE BEEN DETAINED BY THE ENEMY, FROM THOSE WE DERIVE SOME LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND SITUATIONS TO PUT STUDENTS THROUGH SO THAT WE CAN TEST THEIR DECISION-MAKING BUILDING AND ALSO USE SOME OF THOSE STRATEGIES TO INCREASE THE RESISTANCE AND THE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SURVIVE IF THEY'RE SUBJECTED TO THEM. IT'S NOT THE SAME AT ALL AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPLIED IN AN INTERROGATION SETTING.
01:19:24 Levin, Carl DURING THE RESISTANCE PHASE OF TRAINING WHERE SERE SCHOOL INSTRUCTORS PLAY THE ROLE OF INTERROGATORS, IS THERE A PHRASE YOU GAVE TO STUDENTS WHICH THEY CAN USE TO MAKE THE TRAINING STOP.
01:19:36 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES.
01:19:39 Levin, Carl ARE SERE INSTRUCTORS TRAINED INTERROGATORS?
01:19:41 Ogrisseg, Jerald NO, THEY ARE NOT.
01:19:42 Levin, Carl DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU WERE BEING ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION BY COLONEL BAUMGARTNER?
01:19:47 Ogrisseg, Jerald I ASSUMED IT WAS RELATED TO QUESTIONING JUST AS THE TITLE SAYS, THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING.
01:19:55 Levin, Carl DO YOU KNOW WHY HE WAS ASKING YOU? DID HE SAY FROM HIGHER UPS?
01:19:58 Ogrisseg, Jerald HE DID. AS I SAID IN THE MY WRITTEN STATEMENT, HE SAID HE WAS BEING ASKED FROM ABOVE THAT MATTER, BUT I DID NOT QUESTION HIM FURTHER AS TO WHO WAS ASKING HIM OR WHY.
01:20:08 Levin, Carl DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT, COLONEL BAUMGARTNER?
01:20:10 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
01:20:12 Levin, Carl WHO IS ABOVE?
01:20:13 Baumgartner, Daniel THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.
01:20:19 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT.
01:20:21 Levin, Carl DID YOU KNOW, DR. OGRISSEG, THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING USING THESE TECHNIQUES AGAINST DETAINEES WHEN YOU SENT THIS INFORMATION?
01:20:31 Ogrisseg, Jerald THE ONLY HINT OF THAT THAT I GOT WAS THE QUESTION I GOT FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, WAS THAT SOMETHING SOMEONE WAS ASKING ABOUT IT. I NEVER WOULD HAVE ASSUMED BASED OND MY MEMO WHICH CLEARLY PERTAINS TO MEDICALLY SCREENED, MEDICALLY MONITORED TRAINEES THAT THERE WOULD BE INFERENCES ABOUT THIS THAT WOULD BE USED TO TRY TO PROMOTE THESE TYPES OF PROCEDURES IN REAL WORLD DETAINEE HANDLING.
01:20:55 Levin, Carl SO YOU DID NOT BELIEVE WHEN YOU SENT THIS MEMO THAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE LACK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM GIVEN THE CONTROLS THERE, THAT THIS -- THAT THESE TECHNIQUES WOULD BE USED AGAINST DETAINEES?
01:21:07 Levin, Carl KAI. THANK YOU. SENATOR GRAHAM.
01:21:13 Graham, Lindsey MR. SHIFFRIN, IS THAT RIGHT? AM I SAYING YOUR NAME RIGHT?
01:21:16 Shiffrin, Richard YES, SENATOR.
01:21:17 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. HAYNES WAS EXPRESSING SOME CONCERN THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING GOOD INTELLIGENCE BASED ON RAPPORT BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING NEW AND DIFFERENT. IS THAT CORRECT?
01:21:33 Shiffrin, Richard I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY, SENATOR. MY RECOLLECTION IS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, WEEKS OR MONTHS, I WAS PIF I HAVE TO OR ATTENDED MEETINGS WHERE THE DISCUSSION WAS PROGRESS OR LACK OF PROGRESS IN THE EXPLOITATION OF DETAINEES. I REMEMBER ATTENDING AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MEETINGS WITH MAJOR GENERAL DUNLEAVY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN HE WOULD COME UP -- HE CAME UP ONCE EVERY MONTH OR TWO, BRIEF THE SECRETARY, BRIEF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BRIEF THE GENERAL COUNSEL IN SEPARATE MEETINGS. I, ALONG WITH FIVE OR SIX OTHER MEMBERS OF MY OFFICE, ATTENDED THOSE MEETINGS. DURING THOSE MEETINGS THERE WAS OFTEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WAS WORKING, WHAT WASN'T WORKING AT GUANTANAMO. THERE WAS A GENERAL SENSE THAT WE OUGHT TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE. BUT FOR SOME REASON WE'RE NOT.
01:22:31 Graham, Lindsey SO BASICALLY THIS WAS DRIVEN BY DESIRE TO GET BETTER INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY AND THE FEELING WAS THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH, SOMETHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE TRIED. IS THAT THE GENERAL PROPOSITION HERE?
01:22:46 Shiffrin, Richard SOMETHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE TRIED. I THINK MY SENSE WAS THAT MAYBE WE'RE NOT SMART ABOUT THIS, AND THAT'S WHY MY FIRST REQUEST TO JPRA WAS FOR ALL HISTORICAL MATERIALS THEY HAD THAT -- OF WHAT WORKED AND DIDN'T WORK. IN FACT, I HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF BEING TOLD BY THE PERSON I SPOKE TO ON THE PHONE THAT WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION, WE HAVE A LIBRARY, BUT IT'S AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE NEAR SPOKANE. AND IT WAS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO GET IT. AND I, OF COURSE -- THE WAY OUR OFFICE RAN, JIM HAYNES ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THIS. A FEW HOURS LATER OR THE NEXT DAY SAID WHAT HAVE YOU GOT? I SAID, WELL, I FOUND WHERE SOME MATERIAL LIES, BUT IT'S 3,000 MILES AWAY, AND IT'S GOINGS TO TAKE MORE THAN A DAY TO GET HERE. HE SAID, WELL, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. AND I PROBABLY CALLED BACK TO ST. BELVOIR AND SAID, GEE, I'M UNDER PRESSURE TO GET THIS MATERIAL HERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND I THINK WITHIN FOUR OR FIVE DAYS TWO MEMBERS, IS MY RECOLLECTION, DROVE UP FROM FORT BELVOIR WITH SEVERAL BOXES OF MATERIALS. I THINK THEY OCCUPIED TWO OR THREE FEET ON MY SHELF IN MY SMALL OFFICE. AND I WENT THROUGH THEM, 98% OF IT WAS FROM THE 1950s, POST KOREAN WAR STUDIES, PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS, ARTICLES, ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR SERVICEMEN IN KOREA.
01:24:29 Graham, Lindsey OKAY. COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, DO THE TECHNIQUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WORK?
01:24:36 Baumgartner, Daniel IN WHAT FRAME OF REFERENCE, SIR?
01:24:39 Graham, Lindsey GETTING INTELLIGENCE.
01:24:41 Baumgartner, Daniel I'M NOT AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SIR, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THEY WORK IN OUR TRAINING PROCESS TO DEMONSTRATE TO STUDENTS HOW TO RESIST SOMEBODY GETTING INTELLIGENCE FROM YOU. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR.
01:24:54 Graham, Lindsey SO YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY YIELD GOOD INFORMATION?
01:24:58 Baumgartner, Daniel I DON'T, SIR. I WASN'T THERE.
01:25:04 Graham, Lindsey DOCTOR, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT --
01:25:09 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR MY EXPERTISE COMES IN THE REALM OF TRAINING, AND I SERBLY KNOW THESE TECHNIQUES ARE EFFECTIVE IN GETTING OUR TRAINEES TO LEARN THE SKILLS AND DEVELOP THE CONFIDENCE THAT WE NEED TO IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AND RETURN WITH HONOR FROM CAPTIVITY. I DO NOT HAVE --
01:25:26 Graham, Lindsey BASED ON YOUR STUDIES OF THIS SUBJECT MATTER, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU CAN GET ALMOST ANYBODY TO SAY ANYTHING IF YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH ON THEM OVERTIME?
01:25:36 Ogrisseg, Jerald I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S TRUE, BUT THAT'S ALSO THE PROBLEM. YOU COULD GET THEM TO SAY ANYTHING.
01:25:45 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU.
01:25:47 Levin, Carl SENATOR LIEBERMAN.
01:25:50 Lieberman, Joseph THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME FIRST THANK YOU AND THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY EXERCISE IN GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF A VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC WITH AN EXHAUSTIVE AND I THINK IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION THAT YOU'VE DONE. I WANT TO THANK YOU AND SENATOR GRAHAM FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING OPENING STATEMENTS. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS THE CLEAREST KIND OF SIGHT, BUT NONETHELESS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK BACK SO THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. I WOULD START BY ECHOING WHAT SENATOR LEVIN SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS REMARKS, WHICH IS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE KNOW THAT INTELLIGENCE GATHERED FROM DETAINEES IS CRITICAL TO OUR SUCCESS, OUR SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF OUR KROOPS AND OUR ALLIES IN THE WAR AGAINST -- WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. WE'VE HAD MORE THAN ONE COMMANDER, PARTICULARLY FROM IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN TELL US THAT INFORMATION GAINED FROM DETAINEES IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FORM OF INTELLIGENCE STILL THAT WE OBTAIN IN ORDER TO CONFRONT THE ENEMY THAT WE'RE FACING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE A NATION THAT IS A NATION OF LAW. AND THEREFORE, TO ME, THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO HOLD UP IN THE OUR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES IS -- IS IT LEGAL? AND IS IT EFFECTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES IT PRODUCE INFORMATION THAT IS HELPFUL, OR DOES IT HAVE OTHER EFFECTS AND MIGHT IT PRODUCE, AS DR. OGRISSEG SAID IN RESPONSE, TO SENATOR GRAHAM, INFORMATION THAT'S NOT TRUTHFUL, OR IN THE LARGER CONTEXT AS WE'VE SEEN, AFTER ABU GHRAIB, MIGHT IT AFFECT OUR STANDING GENERALLY IN OUR EFFECTIVENESS ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM. I REMEMBER BEING WITH SENATEOR McCAIN AND SENATE GRAHAM IN CAMP BUICK KA IN IRAQ WHICH IS A LARGE DETENTION CENTER, MEETING A FORMER MEMBER OF AL QAEDA IN IRAQ WHO SAID ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS MOTIVATED TO JOIN AL QAEDA IN EYE REMARK WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT HE HEARD HAPPENED AT ABU GHRAIB. THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF. WHAT I FIND IN THIS STORY, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMITTEE HAS REVEALED, IN HINDSIGHT, IS LOOKING, SOME PEOPLE WHO ACTED IN WAYS -- I ASSUME WELL MOTIVATED, THAT LOOK NOW LIKE THEY WERE WRONG. AND SOME PEOPLE WHO SAID SOME THINGS WHICH IN HINDSIGHT ARE JARRING AND UNACCEPTABLE. THE COMMENT, IF DETAINEES DIE, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG, WITH REGARD TO WATERBOARDING, IS NOT OBVIOUSLY WHAT ANY OF US WANT TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY WORKING FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. EVEN SECRETARY RUMSFELD'S STATEMENT WHICH IS HARD TO READ WITH CERTAIN CLARITY, BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS AN EDGE TO IT THAT SEEMS TO BE UNACCEPTABLE ABOUT HOW LONG THE DETAINEES COULD BE FORCED TO -- I STAND EIGHT TO TEN HOURS A DAY, WHY ARE THEY ONLY FORCED TO STAND FOUR HOURS A DAY? THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. BUT THERE ARE HEROES THAT EMERGE FROM THIS, AND CHAIRMAN LEVIN'S STATEMENT OF THE RECORD OF THE INVESTIGATION SHOWS THAT THE LAWYERS FOR THE MILITARY SERVICES SPOKE UP QUITE CLEARLY, I PRESUME BOTH FROM THE CONTEXT OF LAW AND OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES. MR. MORA IS OBVIOUSLY IN HINDSIGHT A HERO HERE WHO ACTED IN THE BEST TRADITIONS OF AMERICAN LAW AND MILITARY. I WANT TO GO TO MY QUESTIONS NOW AND BEGIN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT TO LEARN IN HINDSIGHT. MR. SHIFFRIN, AT THE BEGINNING IN YOUR ANSWER TO CHAIRMAN LEVIN'S FIRST QUESTION, YOU BEGAN TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT I HAD WHICH WAS WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE HAVE GONE TO THE PEOPLE TRAINING -- THE SERE GROUP TRAINING, PREPARING OUR MILITARY FOR THE KIND OF HARSH INTERROGATION THAT THE ENEMY MIGHT IMPOSE ON THEM TO FIND OUT WHAT WE MIGHT DO? AND MY OWN QUESTION TO MYSELF WAS, WHY WEREN'T WE PREPARED OURSELVES? AND I WANT TO ASK YOU TO DEAL WITH THAT AGAIN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PENTAGON IS A VAST OPERATION. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MILITARY LAWYERS. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH PREVIOUS OR PRESENT PROSECUTORIAL EXPERIENCE, A LOT OF PSYCHOLOGISTS. I TAKE IT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE REALLY WEREN'T READY TO DEAL WITH THESE DETAINEES. AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT AS TO WHY YOU WENT TO THE FOLKS AT SERE TO ASK FOR THEIR HELP?
01:31:30 Shiffrin, Richard AS I STATED, SENATOR, MY RECOLLECTION -- MY PRIMARY MOTIVATION, PHI INITIAL INQUIRY WAS TO FIND THE WISDOM ON THE SUBJECT, THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME PLACE WHERE WE HAD ALL THE LEARNING ON THIS BECAUSE WE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND PEOPLE WITHIN THE PENTAGON AND WITHIN THE SERVICES WHO WERE EXPERIENCED IN CONDUCTING INTERROGATION OUTSIDE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA. THE -- I CAN'T DENY THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT ABOUT REVERSE ENGINEERING SERE TECHNIQUES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, BUT IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THAT WAS ANOTHER PART OF THIS. I RECALL THAT WHEN I ANSWERED THE EARLIER QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRAHAM, I SAID THE FIRST TRENCH WAS THIS HISTORICAL STUFF FROM THE 1950s. I THINK MR. HAYNES CAME BACK TO ME AND SAID NO, NO, THIS ISN'T WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. IN FACT, I THINK THE -- AT THE END OF THAT, THAT STUFF SAT ON MY SHELF FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE LOOKED AT IT BESIDES ME. U I REMEMBER AT THE TIME OF MY LEAVING THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE I CALLED DOWN TO ST. BELVOIR AND SAID YOU GUYS BETTER COME AND GET THIS BACK BECAUSE A LOT OF IT IS ORIGINAL MATERIAL.
01:32:59 Lieberman, Joseph LET ME ASK YOU, IF I CAN, BECAUSE MY TIME IS LIMITED, THIS QUESTION, DID YOU EVER CALL OR AS FAR AS YOU KNOW DID ANYBODY IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE EVER CALL THE INTERROGATION EXPERTS AT THE DIA, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OR THE ARMY'S INTERROGATION SCHOOL?
01:33:21 Shiffrin, Richard NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
01:33:23 Lieberman, Joseph HOW ABOUT ANY OF THE FOLKS -- I KNOW LATER ON PEOPLE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE PENTAGON GOT INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY THROUGH THE MILITARY SERVICES, BUT DID ANYBODY IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE EVER THINK TO CALL PEOPLE IN CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ABOUT INTERROGATION TACTICS THAT WORKED?
01:33:42 Shiffrin, Richard I DO RECALL ARMY CID BEING INVOLVED. I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PRECISE TIME FRAME. BUT I RECALL FAIRLY EARLY ON SOME PARTICIPATION BY ARMY CID.
01:33:59 Lieberman, Joseph HOW ABOUT REACHING OUT TO PROSECUTORS IN THE CIVILIAN SECTOR WHO DO A LOT OF INTAR INTERROGATING, OUR POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE DEVELOPED TECHNIQUES? OBVIOUSLY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS IN U.S. COURTS HAVE MORE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS THAN DETAINEES, AT LEAST PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT LAST WEEK, BUT DID ANYONE AT GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE OF THE PENTAGON EVER REACH OUT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE U.S.?
01:34:23 Shiffrin, Richard TO THE TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THE PENTAGON ACTED UNDERSECRETARY RUMSFELD.
01:34:31 Lieberman, Joseph DR. OGRISSEG, ONE LAST QUESTION, BECAUSE MY TIME REALLY IS RUNNING. AT ANY POINT DID ANYONE ASK YOU OR DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE BEING ASKED FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT AS A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT YOU WERE LISTING, NOT TO TRAIN OUR PEOPLE BUT TO ELICIT EVIDENCE FROM DETAINEES?
01:35:08 Ogrisseg, Jerald MR. SENATOR, THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT I WAS REALLY ASKED ABOUT THIS PERTAINED TO THE MEMO THAT I HAD WRITTEN IN 2002 WHICH IS PART OF THE RECORD HERE. AND IT'S --
01:35:22 Lieberman, Joseph SO IN THAT MEMO, YOU DID NOT FEEL THAT YOU HAD TO MAKE A JUDGMENT OR OFFER YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ABOUT HOW EFFECTIVE THESE TECHNIQUES MIGHT BE IN ELICITING TESTIMONY FROM -- INFORMATION IN THE
01:35:37 Ogrisseg, Jerald NO. I FELT LIKE IN THE DISCUSSION WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, I I UNDERSTAND IT KAD -- ONE OF MY ETHICAL ISSUES AS A PSYCHOLOGIST SINCE I'M NOT A LEGAL PRACTITIONER, NOT A JUDGE OR LAWYER, I HAVE ETHICS WITHIN MY FIELD. ONE OF MY THE THINGS IS YOU DON'T PRACTICE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF MY COMPETENCE. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF MY COMPETENCE. I WAS IN THE TRAINING BUSINESS AND UNDERSTOOD THE TRAINING. WHEN I SAID THIS IS SOMETHING WE AT THE AIR FORCE SURVIVAL SCHOOL DON'T KNOW ABOUT, I WAS GIVING MY THERE AND ALSO GIVING MY OPINION ABOUT THE WATER BOARD WITH RESPECT TO TRAINING. I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE USED ANYWHERE. BUT I DIDN'T -- THAT WAS MY STANCE THAT I WAS TAKING AT THAT
01:36:28 Lieberman, Joseph UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
01:36:33 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR LIEBERMAN. SENATOR COLLINS?
01:36:37 Collins, Susan THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. SHIFFRIN, MY QUESTIONS FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTIONS THAT SENATOR LIEBERMAN JUST ASKED YOU. I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER STANDING OF WHY THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM THE FBI, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH HAS PROBABLY THE MOST EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN INTERROGATING HOSTILE DETAINEES OF PERHAPS ANYONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW LATER THAT THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN DOD AND THE FBI ON THE PROPER APPROACH TO USE WITH DETAINEES. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE GREAT FRUSTRATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE LACK OF INFORMATION THAT WAS BEING SECURED OR OBTAINED FROM THE DETAINEES, AND YOU ALSO SAID IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONING FROM SENATOR LEVIN THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF INTERROGATION FOR SOME TIME. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WAS MORE LOGICAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GO TO THE FBI FOR ASSISTANCE THAN TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE SERE TECHNIQUES COULD BE RE-ENGINEERED TO BE USED FOR INTERROGATION SINCE THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SERE TECHNIQUES WERE. COULD YOU GIVE US MORE UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHY THE DEPARTMENT UNDERSECRETARY RUMSFELD WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO TURN TO THE FBI FOR ASSISTANCE?
01:38:32 Shiffrin, Richard ASSUMING THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR PREMISE AND THAT IS THEY DID NOT GO TO THE FBI -- I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER THEY DID OR DIDN'T. IT'S LIKE THEY DIDN'T. MY ANSWER IS MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND LIMITED DEALINGS WITH THE SECRETARY. THAT IS THE SECRETARY WAS VERY JEALOUS OF OTHER AGENCIES AND SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO DOD'S INHERENT CAPABILITIES. I CAN REMEMBER ONE INCIDENT THAT CAME UP TWO OR THREE TIMES, SOMEONE UNRELATED. THAT WAS THE CIA'S ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE IN AFGHANISTAN. THE SECRETARY WAS QUITE UPSET THAT THE CIA WAS MORE EFFECTIVE IN AFGHANISTAN THAN WE WERE IN SOME CASES, ESPECIALLY AT THE ONSET OF HOSTILITIES OR BEFORE OS STILTS. OF COURSE, IT WAS UNDERSTANDABLE THE CIA HAD BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS AND THE MILITARY HADN'T SET FOOT IN AFGHANISTAN FOR 25 YEARS. THAT WAS NEVER A SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO HIM. IN FACT, HE ENDED UP BUILDING A CAPABILITY THAT MIRRORED THE CIA. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNTHINKABLE TO SAY TO THE SECRETARY, YOU KNOW T PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY GOOD AT THIS ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE SHOULD TALK TO THE FBI, TALK TO DEA, TO TALK OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING INTERROGATION FOR THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS. I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT ANSWER.
01:40:01 Collins, Susan I SUSPECT THAT YOU'RE CORRECT BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO DO INTELLIGENCE REFORM WHICH THE SECRETARY WAS VERY RESISTANT TO AND WANTED INSTEAD TO BUILD UP A DUPLICATIVE CAPABILITY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. HOW ABOUT HOW THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL WHICH HAD BEEN THE GUIDANCE FOR THE ARMY AT LEAST IN CONDUCTING INTERROGATION? WAS THERE DISCUSSION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF WHY THAT WAS INADEQUATE IN DEALING WITH THESE DETAINEES?
01:40:43 Shiffrin, Richard I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT.
01:40:47 Collins, Susan COLONEL, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHY THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL'S GUIDANCE ON INTERROGATION WAS NOT ADEQUATE?
01:40:56 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SENATOR, I'M NOT.
01:40:58 Collins, Susan LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION BASED ON THE SERE TRAINING. PRIOR TO 2002, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TIME IN WHICH THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES BASED ON SERE TRAINING WERE EVER EMPLOYED SUCCESSFULLY BY MILITARY INTERROGATORS OR BY MEMBERS OF OTHER U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?
01:41:27 Baumgartner, Daniel LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION THIS WAY. WHAT WE CALL -- WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS CALLING SERE TECHNIQUES WITH REGARDS TO INTERROGATION, THEY'RE NOT JUST SERE TECHNIQUES. THEY'RE USED BY PRIESTS, POLICE, YOUR MOM AND DAD. GOOD COP/BAD COP. WE DIDN'T INVENT THAT, BUT WE USE IT IN TRAINING. A LOT OF THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES. AND SOME OF THEM, IT'S A FRIENDLY INTERVIEWER. IN SOME OF THEM THE INTERVIEWER IS NOT SO FRIENDLY. WE'VE TAKEN WHAT WE HAVE FOUND, AS DR. OGRISSEG FOUND, AND INTERNALIZED THOSE TO OUR TRAINING BECAUSE THEY KNOW -- WE KNOW THEY WORK AGAINST US, AND THEY HAVE IN THE PAST. THAT'S WHY WE DO LESSONS LEARNED ON EVERY DETENTION PRISONER OF WAR, PEACE-TIME, GOVERNMENTAL SITUATION WE'VE COME ACROSS. SO WE CAN TRAINING OUR FOLKS MORE EFFECTIVELY. WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER FOLKS ARE DOING, WE DON'T REALLY INVESTIGATE HOW WE DO ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR OR TENSION OPERATIONS BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO OUR TRAINING.
01:42:40 Collins, Susan BUT THE SERE TRAINING WAS NEVER INTENDED TO TEACH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, CORRECT?
01:42:49 Baumgartner, Daniel WE DON'T TEACH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
01:42:51 Collins, Susan IT'S RESISTANCE AND SUR VOOICHL, CORRECT?
01:42:55 Baumgartner, Daniel WE TEACH OUR INSTRUCK INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES, WE TEACH THEM HOW TO USE PHYSICAL PRESSURES SO WE CAN TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO RESIST A DETERMINED ADVERSARY. THEY LEARN THOSE, NOT TO EMPLOY THEM AS OFFENSIVE CAPABILITIES, BUT TO TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO EMPLOY THE TECHNIQUES WE'RE TRYING TO TEACH THEM AND HOW TO RESIST ENEMY CAPTIVITY.
01:43:19 Collins, Susan BUT THE IRONY HERE IS THAT THE SERE TRAINING IS INTENDED TO HELP OUR TROOPS RESIST INAPPROPRIATE INTERROGATION METHODS.
01:43:32 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, MA'AM.
01:43:36 Collins, Susan -- INHUMANE METHODS.
01:43:37 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, MA'AM.
01:43:39 Collins, Susan SO BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE SERE TRAINING, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP OUR TROOPS RESIST AND SURVIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT ARE NOT SANCTIONED, THAT ARE IN HUMANE OR OUTSIDE THE PALE. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S SO TROUBLING TO MANY OF US THAT THOSE TECHNIQUES WERE INVESTIGATED FOR USE BY OUR INTERROGATORS WHEN, IN FACT, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF SERE TRAINING IS TO TEACH OUR TROOPS HOW TO SURVIVE WHEN THEY'RE BEING QUESTIONED BY TEAM WHO DO NOT OBEY THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS OF HUMANE TREATMENT. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?
01:44:33 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SENATOR. I BELIEVE IT IS.
01:44:36 Collins, Susan THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
01:44:42 Akaka, Daniel THANK YOU, SENATOR COLLINS. SENATOR SENATOR AKAKA IS NEXT. MR. SIF RIN, I'M INTERESTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING YOUR INITIAL REQUEST TO THE COLONEL COLONEL. PRIOR TO YOUR JULY 2002 REQUEST, HOW FAMILIAR WITH YOU WITH THE TRAINING CONDUCTED AT THE JPRA, MORE SPECIFICALLY, TO WHAT EXTENT WERE YOU AWARE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE RESISTANCE PHASE OF SERE TRAINING, AND THAT THESE TECHNIQUES WERE DESIGNED TO STIMULATE -- ENEMIES ABIDE BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
01:45:44 Shiffrin, Richard I ONLY KNOW JPRA THROUGH ANOTHER PROGRAM. I HAVE NO DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF SERE. I SNU WHAT SERE WAS, BUT NO MORE THAN YOU COULD GET FROM READING A PARAGRAPH ON IT.
01:46:02 Akaka, Daniel COLONEL, TT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR ADVANCED TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO THE USAF SURVIVAL SCHOOL IN A VARIETY OF CAPACITIES FROM 1990 UNTIL YOUR RETIREMENT IN 2003, AND THAT IN YOUR LAST ASSIGNMENT AS CHIEF OF STAFF, YOU HAD BROUGHT OVERSIGHT AND KNOWLEDGE OF INTERNAL PROCESSES. THE QUESTION IS PRIOR TO THE JULY REQUEST REGARDING INTERROGATION RESISTANCE TECHNIQUES USED AGAINST U.S. PRISONERS OF WAR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAD THE JPRA EVER BEEN CONTACTED BY THE DOD'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL REGARDING THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION? IN OTHER WORDS, TO WHAT EXTENT DID THIS SEEM TO YOU TO BE AN UNUSUAL REQUEST AT THAT TIME?
01:47:02 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, THERE WAS CONTACT TWEECHB JPRA AND THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO JULY 2002. AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFFERS, I CAME TO REAM LIES THAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY REQUESTED THE MATERIAL THAT MR. SHIFFRIN SAID, THE HISTORICAL MATERIAL BACK IN DECEMBER OF '01. SO THAT WAS THE FIRST CONTACT. THE NEXT CONTACT WAS IN EARLY JULY WHEN THEY ASKED US FOR INFORMATION ON EXPLOITATION, INTERROGATION, AND I CLEARED THAT WITH THE U.S. JOINT FORCES AND HEADQUARTERS AND MY COMMANDER, TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION.
01:47:48 Akaka, Daniel AT THAT TIME WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST?
01:47:54 Baumgartner, Daniel I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE OR PUT ANY THOUGHTS IN ANYBODY'S MINDS ON THAT. BUT WE USED IT FOR TRAINING. THE ONLY OTHER PURPOSE YOU COULD USE IT FOR WOULD BE IF YOU WERE TO USE IT IN A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. WE WEREN'T PART OF THAT DECISION PROCESS. WE JUST -- WE WERE TASKED BY HIGHER HEADQUARTERS FOR INFORMATION AND WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION.
01:48:21 Akaka, Daniel COLONEL, YOU ASSERT THE SEPTEMBER 2002 FT. BRAGG BRIEFINGS WERE TO ASSIST THE ARMY IN TRAINING ARMY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND OTHER MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL ON WHAT IT MEANT TO BE ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT GUANTANAMO BAY INCLUDING INSTRUCTION AND EXPLOITATION, OVERSIGHT AND TREATMENT OF DETAINEES AND STAFF IN A CAPTIVITY ENVIRONMENT. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES DEMONSTRATED AT THIS BRIEFING. ALSO, TO WHAT EX-TENT WERE YOU AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE JPRA BRIEFING TO BE USED AS A MODEL FOR THE TYPES OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES RECOMMENDED IN THE JTMO SERE INTERROGATION SOP?
01:49:24 Baumgartner, Daniel I KNOW THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WERE BRIEF. THEY TALKED ABOUT EXPLOITATION. I'M PRETTY SURE -- I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT -- BUT I KNOW THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU OVERSEE, WHEN YOU HAVE FOLKS IN DETENTION, WHETHER YOU'RE IN TRAINING OR IN ANOTHER VENUE. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW WE HANDLE OUR STUDENTS. HOW THEY'RE MOVED, HOW THEY'RE DETAINED, HOW THEY'RE RESTRAINED, IF RESTRAINT IS DEEMED NECESSARY ADDS PART OF THE TRAINING. AND SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT YOU FIND IN THE TRAINING ENVIRONMENT ARE CERTAINLY ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH OFFENSIVE DETENTION ENVIRONMENT. AS FAR AS ACTUAL TECHNIQUES BEING DEMONSTRATED, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO DEBT BRIEFED, AND I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
01:50:13 Akaka, Daniel MR. OGRISSEG, ONE OF MY DEEPEST CONCERNS IN REVIEWING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THIS HEAR WAS WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE DELIBERATE DECISION BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TO USE THE TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED TO ASSIST OUR ARMED FORCES MEMBERS TO SURVIVE FORMS OF MISTREATMENT AND TORTURE PERPETUATED BY ENEMY COMBATANTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION TO DEVELOP OUR NATION'S OWN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES WITH REGARDS TO TREATMENT OF DETAINEES. YET IT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR WHAT THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF GATH GATHERING INFORMATION. MY QUESTION, DOCTOR, IS HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE RESISTANCE TRAINING MEMBERS. ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT ENEMY COMBATANTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIMILAR RESISTANCE MAKING THESE METHODS LESS VIABLE THAN OTHER OPTIONS SUCH AS RAPPORT BUILDING?
01:51:33 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR, I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO HOW EFFECTIVE OUR TRAINING IS BECAUSE WE STUDIED IT. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF MY JOB IS TO DO PROGRAM EVALUATIONS OF THIS TYPE OF TRAINING TO ENSURE THAT OUR STUDENTS COME THROUGH FEELING CONFIDENT THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO HANDLE THESE SITUATIONS. AND, THEREFORE, WE USE SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT WE DO TO ACTUALLY ENHANCE THEIR CONFIDENCE, MUCH LIKE A LOT OF OTHER FIELDS THAT WANT PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS AND VERY DIFFICULT SPOTS. WE PUT THEM INTO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MODEL WHAT PEOPLE HAVE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST. FIREFIGHTERS USE PHYSICAL PRESSURES. THEY TEACH PEOPLE SKILLS AND PUT THEM IN BURNING BUILDINGS SO THAT DURING TRAINING THEY DEVELOP THOSE LEARNED SKILLS AND MAKE THEM LESS VUL TO BEING DEGRADED BY STRESS. IN OUR TRAINING, WE BOTH APPROXIMATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO PEOPLE IN THE PAST, BUT WE ALSO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT THE STUDENTS CAN SUCCEED AND WE HAVE SURVEYED HOW CONFIDENT THEY WILL WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THESE EXPERIENCES UNTRAINED VERSUS HOW CONFIDENT THEY ARE AFTERWARDS AND THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER. WE KNOW THAT THEY DEFINITELY TAKE IN THE SKILL SETS BECAUSE WE HAVE WAYS OF ASSESSING WHICH SKILL SETS THEY'RE APPLYING. I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE KNOW OUR STUDENTS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY NEED FROM TRAINING.
01:53:10 Akaka, Daniel COLONEL, IN YOUR ADVANCED TESTIMONY YOU NOTE THAT WHILE YOU WERE AWARE OF MANY THINGS INVOLVING THE JPRA, YOU WERE NOT PRIVY TO EVERYTHING. YOU ALSO NOTE THAT JPRA DIRECTORS HAD THE AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE COMMANDER AND DEPUTY COMMANDER AS WELL. MY QUESTION TO YOU, COLONEL, IS WHY WOULD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S INPUT OR KNOWLEDGE?
01:53:46 Baumgartner, Daniel SENATOR, THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION IS NOT LIKE A CHIEF OF STAFF FOR, SAY, A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. YOU'RE NOT THE GATEKEEPER FOR EVERYTHING. STAFF DIRECTOR IS PROBABLY A BETTER -- MANAGING THE FORMATS, MANAGING STAFF PACKAGES, BEING THE CHIEF STAFF OFFICER FOR THE COMMANDER, MAKING SURE THINGS ARE DONE CORRECTLY AND MAKING SURE THE DIRECTORS PLAY WELL WITH EACH OTHER IN THE DAY-TO-DAY CONDUCT OF YOUR BUSINESS IS PROBABLY MORE ACCURATE. SO EACH DIRECTOR HAS THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE COMMANDER WITHOUT GOING TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF IF THEY SO CHOOSE. THE COMMANDER WILL SOMETIMES REACH OUT FOR ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE ISSUES LIKE PERSONNEL ISSUES OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECTOR AND NOT USE THE CHIEF OF STAFF BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE ISSUE. SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT -- USUALLY EVERYTHING GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE OFFICE, NOT ALWAYS. THROUGH THERE IS A TREMENDOUS VOLUME OF THINGS THAT WENT THROUGH THE OFFICE.
01:54:52 Akaka, Daniel THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
01:54:57 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATE TOR AKAKA. SENATOR BILL NELSON?
01:55:01 Nelson, Bill THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. OGRISSEG, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP. IN YOUR TRAINING YOU SPOKE ABOUT WATERBOARDING. DID YOU USE ALSO USE SLEP DEPRIVATION IN YOUR TRAINING?
01:55:17 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR, IN AIR FORCE TRAINING WE'VE NEVER USED WATERBOARDING. NEVER. IN MY STATEMENT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TRAINING THAT WAS DONE AT THE NAVY SCHOOL IN SAN DIEGO. SO WE'VE NEVER DONE IT AND WOULD NEVER DO IT FOR THE REASONS THAT I OUTLINED THERE THAT IT'S DETRIMENTAL TO A STRESS INOCTOBER LAGS APPROACH TO THIS TRAINING. WE WANT THEM TO COME THROUGH MORE RESISTANT DISTRESS. WE DO, HOWEVER, USE SOME SLEEP DEPRIVATION WITHIN THE TRAINING. OUR STUDENTS GET TIRED AND FATIGUED BECAUSE IN REAL SITUATIONS IN THE PAST, HISTORICALLY THEY'VE BEEN INTERROGATED WHILE THEY'RE TIRED AND FATIGUED.
01:56:03 Nelson, Bill I WANT TO GET TO YOUR TESTIMONY. SO WITH REGARD TO WATERBOARDING AND TRAINING, YOUR TESTIMONY AND I QUOTE YOU, I TOLD HIM, LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, I HAD SEEN WATERBOARDING USED WHILE OBSERVING NAVY TRAINING DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND I WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND IT BEING
01:56:24 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
01:56:26 Nelson, Bill END OF QUOTE. YOU'VE SEEN IT, AND YOU FURTHER SAY THE WATER BOARD PRODUCED CAPITULATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH INSTRUCTOR DEMANDS 100% OF THE TIME. YOU FINISH UP BY SAYING THAT THE WATER BOARD EXPRESSED EXTREME AVOIDANCE ATTITUDES SUCH AS THE LIKELIHOOD TO FURTHER COMPLY WITH ANY DEMANDS MADE OF THEM IF BROUGHT NEAR THE WATER BOARD AGAIN. SO WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THAT.
01:57:01 Ogrisseg, Jerald WELL, SENATOR, WHEN I OBSERVED THE NAVY TRAINING, I NOT ONLY WATCHED WHEN FOLKS WERE BEING PUT ON THE WATER BOARD, BUT ALSO WENT TO OBSERVE WHEN THEY WERE BEING DEBRIEFED FOLLOWING TRAINING. AND WITH -- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MANY, BUT WITH THREE OR FOUR OF THE STUDENTS THAT I SAW THAT EXPERIENCED THE WATER BOARD, I HEARD THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT PRESSURE, AND THE GIST OF THE COMMENTS IS, AS I STATED THERE, IF THEY HAD BROUGHT ME NEAR THAT THING AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH ANYTHING THAT THEY TOLD ME TO DO AND DONE ANYTHING TO AVOID IT.
01:57:45 Nelson, Bill IT'S TO PREPARE OUR TROOPS FOR CAPTIVITY. NOW, THE CHAIRMAN IN HIS OPENING COMMENTS SAID THAT THIS TECHNIQUE HAS IS LIMITED TO 20 SECONDS. AND OUR NAVY STUDENTS, PRIMARILY SEALS, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE CAN KILLED IN THIS OPERATION, IT WAS A TRAINING EXERCISE. SO IT'S TO PREPARE THEM FOR IT SO YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THAT ARE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHATEVER THE CAP TORE WANTS THE CAPTEE TO DO AS A RESULT OF WATERBOARDING, THE CAPTEE IS GOING TO DO. IS THAT YOUR OBSERVATION?
01:58:39 Ogrisseg, Jerald WHAT MY OBSERVATION WAS, CERTAINLY THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS WANTED. AS FAR AS WHAT THE INFORMATION THEY GAVE, I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TRUE OR NOT.
01:58:50 Nelson, Bill WELL, YOU SAID EARLIER TO SOMEONE'S QUESTION, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A WAY FOR THE TRAINEE TO STOP THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE. TELL US ABOUT THAT.
01:59:06 Ogrisseg, Jerald IN ALL OF THE SCHOOL PROGRAMS THAT I HAVE SEEN, THERE'S A TERM THAT CAN BE USED FOR THEM TO SAY, HEY, I NEED TO TALK TO SOMEONE, GET THEM OUT OF ROLE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEM BACK ONLINE. AND WITH THE WATER BOARD WHEN I SAW IT, IN 2001, THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY NOT A SIMILAR MECHANISM FOR THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM, BEFORE BEING PLACED IN THAT PRESSURE, TO AVERT IT. EVEN WITH THE SPECIALISTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE SEALS GOING THROUGH, IT DOESN'T TAKE VERY LONG WITH THAT DEVICE TO INSTILL A VERY REAL FEAR OF DROWNING FOR -- AND DEATH FOR ANYONE WHO IS GOING THROUGH IT, EVEN IF THEY KNOW WHAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ARE FOR USING IT DURING TRAINING.
02:00:07 Nelson, Bill ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT LACK OF SLEEP. WHAT WAS YOUR -- WELL, LET ME JUST ASK YOU IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CAPTIVITY, IT SAYS, QUOTE, LACK OF SLEEP FOR PROLONGED PERIODS MAY RESULT IN ANXIETY, IRRITABILITY, MEMORY PROBLEMS, CONFUSIONS, HALLUCINATIONS, PARANOIA, DISORIENTATION AND ULTIMATELY DEATH. WHAT'S YOUR OBSERVATION OF THAT AS YOU SAW IT IN THIS SERE TRAINING?
02:00:49 Ogrisseg, Jerald CERTAINLY PEOPLE WEREN'T PUSHED TO THE LIMITS. BUT MOST OF THE REACTIONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE TYPICAL REACTIONS TO BEING PUT INTO AN EXPERIENCE LIKE THIS. OBVIOUSLY OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THEM EXPERIENCE THAT FIRST WITH THE GOOD GUYS AND HAVE A CHANCE TO APPLY THE STRATEGIES THAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT TO COUNTERACT THOSE.
02:01:11 Nelson, Bill ON THE BASIS OF WHAT YOU SAW IN THE SERE TRAINING, DO YOU HAVE AN ABILITY ABOUT HOW GOOD IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED USING THE TECHNIQUE OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION?
02:01:23 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE -- HOW GOOD THEY LEARN
02:01:27 Nelson, Bill NO.
02:01:29 Ogrisseg, Jerald I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SIR.
02:01:35 Nelson, Bill INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE GATHERED FROM A DETAINEE AS A RESULT OF TAKING THEM THROUGH SLEEP DEPRIVATION. IS THAT RELIABLE INFORMATION?
02:01:48 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERROGATION, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT TRAINING WHICH IS WHERE MY SPECIALTY AREA LIES. I'M NOT SURE THAT --
02:01:57 Nelson, Bill YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBSERVATION HAVING SEEN THE PEOPLE DEPRIVED OF SLEEP DURING TRAINING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION THEY WOULD GIVING --
02:02:14 Ogrisseg, Jerald IN TRAINING, THE SKILL SETS THAT WE WANT THEM TO APPLY ARE TO RESIST THE ATTEMPTS THAT THE CAP TORE IS MAKING AND EXPLOITING THEM. SO THEY'RE ACTIVELY APPLYING SKILL SETS THAT HOPEFULLY WILL DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION THAT THE CAP TORE GETS.
02:02:39 Nelson, Bill MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE I NEED TO ASK YOU THIS OF SOME OF THE FURTHER WITNESSES. LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. UNDER THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL, THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO PUT INTO LAW, THE STANDARD BY WHICH YOU CAN INTERROGATE DETAINEES, IT SAYS THIS. USE OF SEPARATION MUST NOT PRECLUDE THE DETAINEE GETTING FOUR HOURS OF CONTINUOUS SLEEP EVERY 24 HOURS. THAT'S THE STANDARD IN THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL FOR DETAINEES. NOW, WE KNOW AND IT HAS BEEN REPORTED PUBLICLY THAT ALKA TOMMY WAS INTERROGATED SOMETIME IN LATE 2002 AT GUANTANAMO WHERE HE WAS DEPRIVED OF SLEEP BY INTERROGATING HIM FOR 18 TO 20 HOURS A DAY FOR 48 OF 54 DAYS. SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR OPINION OF HIS MENTAL CAPACITY WHEN INTERROGATED FOR THAT LONG?
02:03:55 Ogrisseg, Jerald SENATOR, I CERTAINLY HAVE NO FAMILIARITY WITH THE SUBJECT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I WAS NOT THERE. I DON'T FEEL QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THAT.
02:04:03 Nelson, Bill WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE TRAINING FOR THE AIR FORCE, DID YOU GO THROUGH SLEEP DEPRIVATION YOURSELF?
02:04:10 Ogrisseg, Jerald I CERTAINLY DID.
02:04:12 Nelson, Bill THEN ON THE BASIS OF YOUR SLEEP DEPRIVATION, WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO MY QUESTION?
02:04:21 Ogrisseg, Jerald WELL, I NOT GO THROUGH ANYTHING AS PROLONGED AS WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THERE.
02:04:27 Nelson, Bill HOW MUCH TIME?
02:04:29 Ogrisseg, Jerald IT CERTAINLY VARIES WITHIN THE COURSES, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE RANGE OF FOUR TO 12 HOURS.
02:04:40 Nelson, Bill OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD?
02:04:42 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
02:04:43 Nelson, Bill YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO MY QUESTION?
02:04:46 Ogrisseg, Jerald WELL, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO TRY TO --
02:04:52 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR. YOU ARE. YOU'RE ALSO ASKING ME TO GENERALIZE FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE --
02:04:59 Nelson, Bill THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
02:05:02 Ogrisseg, Jerald -- TO THAT OF AN AL QAEDA MEMBER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PRIOR TO THAT EXPERIENCE THAT YOU DESCRIBED. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS DONE TO HIM. AS A PSYCHOLOGIST, I DON'T FEEL I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
02:05:23 Nelson, Bill I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I HAVE THINK YOU HAVE AN OPINION. BUT SO BE IT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
02:05:31 Levin, Carl THAT REMINDS ME OF YOUR REFERENCE TO CAT TAN ANY, THERE WERE PORTIONS OF MY STATEMENT THAT I LEFT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A LONG STATEMENT. MY ENTIRE STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD INCLUDING THE PARAGRAPHS RELATING TO MR. CAT
02:05:45 Levin, Carl SENATOR BEN NELSON.
02:05:48 Nelson, Benjamin THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, LET ME ADD MY APPRECIATION TO YOU FOR CALLING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING. DR. OGRISSEG, THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING FOR OUR TROOPS IS TO HELP THEM BE ABLE TO SURVIVE UNDER THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THESE TECHNIQUES. IS IT DESIGNED TO KEEP THEM FROM TELLING SECRETS OR GIVING UP INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL AS WELL?
02:06:26 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SENATOR, IT IS.
02:06:28 Nelson, Benjamin AND THAT MAY WORK UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT AT LEAST BASED ON THE FOUR OR FIVE NAVY TROOPS THAT WERE SUBJECTED TO WATERBOARDING, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T KEEP THEM FROM TELLING ANYTHING THAT THE CAP TORE WANTED THEM TO TELL. IS THAT ACCURATE, BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID?
02:06:56 Ogrisseg, Jerald BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID, I CAN DETERMINE CERTAINLY DETERMINE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TALK. I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD SAY ONCE THEY STARTED TALKING. BUT CERTAINLY THIS WOULD GET THEM TALKING AND, WHAT THEY WERE INDICATING WAS THEY WOULD DO WHATEVER THEY COULD TO STAY OFF OF THAT SITUATION.
02:07:21 Nelson, Benjamin AS SOMEBODY INVOLVED IN THE TRAINING, YOU PROBABLY HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD GIVE UP ANYTHING ONCE THEY STARTED TALKING TO KEEP FROM HAVING THE BOARD USED AGAINST THEM?
02:07:33 Ogrisseg, Jerald SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THE FOLKS GOING THROUGH THE TRAINING WOULD BE EQUIPPED ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THAT. BUT BASED ON THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM, I THINK THIS IS MORE LIKE THE RESISTANCE TRAINING METAPHOR IS MUCH LIKE RESISTANCE TRAINING WITH WEIGHTS. WHEN WE WERE --
02:07:56 Nelson, Benjamin IT'S NOT FOOLPROOF?
02:08:00 Ogrisseg, Jerald IT'S NOT FOOLPROOF. THIS IS LIKE PUTTING A 400-POUND BAR ON THEM WHEN THEY'RE ONLY PREPARED TO LIFT ONE THAT'S MAYBE A COUPLE HUNDRED POUNDS.
02:08:11 Nelson, Benjamin IT'S ALSO SAFE TO SAY THAT, IF THE THEY'LL SAY ANYTHING TO AVOID HAVING THE BOARD BROUGHT TO THEM AGAIN, THAT THEY COULD GIVE MISINFORMATION JUST AS EASILY. THEY'D ANSWER ANY QUESTION POTENTIALLY THAT IS PRESENTED TO THEM, WHETHER IT'S ACCURATE INFORMATION OR NOT. IS THAT ACCURATE?
02:08:30 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SENATOR. THAT'S ACCURATE.
02:08:34 Nelson, Benjamin BUT THE PURPOSE IS REALLY NOT SO MUCH TO KEEP THEM FROM GIVING UP SECRETS, IT'S FOR THEIR SURVIVAL. IS THAT FAIR?
02:08:42 Ogrisseg, Jerald IT'S BOTH. INFORMATION IS ONE WAY OUR FORCES COULD BE EXPLOITED. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE WANT THEM TO SURVIVE AND RETURN WITH HONOR. SO IT'S BOTH SURVIVAL AND RESISTANCE.
02:08:59 Nelson, Benjamin LIEUTENANT BAUMGARTNER, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH PROVIDING THE SERE TECHNIQUES TO THE INTERROGATORS?
02:09:10 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
02:09:12 Nelson, Benjamin DID YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE THEM FOR, THE PURPOSE?
02:09:17 Baumgartner, Daniel I KNEW WHEN WE PROVIDED INFORMATION ON RESISTANCE -- INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT THEY WERE -- SOMEBODY WAY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE WAS GOING TO MAKE A DECISION WHAT WAS AP AND WHAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. WE WERE NEVER PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
02:09:34 Nelson, Benjamin MR. SHIFFRIN, DID YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL OPINION AT THE THAT THIS REQUEST WAS MADE FOR THE KIND OF INFORMATION BY MR. HAYNES THAT WENT BEYOND THE STUDIES AND THE RESEARCH INFORMATION --
02:09:59 Shiffrin, Richard SENATOR, MY SOLE EFFORT WAS TO MERELY FIND OUT WHAT INFORMATION WAS OUT THERE.
02:10:05 Nelson, Benjamin NOBODY ASKED YOU WHAT YOUR OPINION WAS UNDER THE UNIFORM MILITARY CODE OR GENEVA CONVENTION OR ANY OTHER BASE FOR
02:10:18 Shiffrin, Richard CORRECT. I DON'T REMEMBER EVER BEING PART OF ANY DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES.
02:10:30 Nelson, Benjamin WELL, DID YOU WONDER IN YOUR OWN MIND WHETHER THIS INFORMATION BEING PASSED ON MIGHT NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH LAWS?
02:10:40 Shiffrin, Richard HONESTLY SENATOR, I DON'T RECALL HAVING THAT CONCERN AT THE TIME. BUT AGAIN, SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES, AND I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED HERE, ARE RELATIVELY BENIGN TECHNIQUES. THEY'RE EFFECTIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. SOME DON'T WORK AND MAYBE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THEM AND SAY LET'S NOT USE THESE. BUT THE COLONEL MENTIONED GOOD COP, BAD COP. THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR CENTURIES. AND --
02:11:08 Nelson, Benjamin THE WATERBOARDING IS NOT IN THAT CATEGORY.
02:11:10 Shiffrin, Richard YES. I NEVER HEARD OF WATERBOARDING UNTIL I THINK I RETIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT AND FOUND OUT IT HAD BEEN USED. I DID NOT AT ANY TIME PARTICIPATE ANY
02:11:46 Nelson, Benjamin I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.
02:12:07 Levin, Carl SENATOR PRY OR.
02:12:08 Pryor, Mark THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR LIEUTENANT COLONEL BAUMGARTNER. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT. FOR CLARIFICATION IN MY MIND, DID THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY EVER ADVOCATE USING THE SERE TECHNIQUES OFFENSIVE MANNER AGAINST DETAINEES?
02:12:35 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SENATOR, WE DID NOT. WHAT WE DID WAS WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION ASKED BY HIGHER HEADQUARTERS ON EXPLOITATION WHICH, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF OUR TRAINING, WE HAVE EXPERTS IN EXPLOITATION. WE HAVE FOLKS THAT HAVE STUDIED INTERROGATION AND INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES. WE OFFERED UP WHAT INFORMATION WE HAD.
02:12:54 Pryor, Mark WOULD YOU TODAY RECOMMEND THESE TECHNIQUES DETAINEES?
02:12:59 Baumgartner, Daniel I'M REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT, SENATOR. WHAT WE DO AS AN ADMINISTRATION IN QUESTIONING DETAINEES, IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOT TO BE DISCUSSED BY LEGAL COUNSEL AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS FAR ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
02:13:20 Pryor, Mark WHERE DID THE TECHNIQUES THAT ALL DO IN YOUR SERE TRAINING, WHERE DO THOSE TECHNIQUES ORIGINATE?
02:13:28 Baumgartner, Daniel THOSE ORIGINATED THROUGH STUDYING LESSONS LEARNED OF PAST CONFLICTS AND HOW OUR FOLKS HAVE BEEN HELD BY AN ADVERSARY.
02:13:38 Pryor, Mark FOR EXAMPLE, WORLD WAR II, VIETNAM.
02:13:41 Baumgartner, Daniel WORLD WAR II, VIETNAM, THE COLD WAR. THE IRANIAN HOSTAGE SITUATION, FOR EXAMPLE. WE STUDIED CIVILIAN DETENTION SITUATIONS THAT HAVE LESSONS THAT MIGHT GAVE US FURTHER TRAINING.
02:13:56 Pryor, Mark SO IN YOUR MIND SINCE OTHER NATIONS OR ENTITIES ARE USING THOSE AGAINST U.S. FORCES, DOES THAT JUSTIFY OUR USE OF THESE TECHNIQUES?
02:14:06 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION ON THAT. I'M NOT A LEGAL EXPERT.
02:14:11 Pryor, Mark BUT DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL OPINION ON IT?
02:14:14 Baumgartner, Daniel I HAVE A PERSONAL OPINION THAT A COUNTRY NEEDS TO SIT DOWN AND DECIDE THAT AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE YOU LAUNCH.
02:14:19 Pryor, Mark I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE LEGAL OPINION. ISN'T THERE ALSO A MORAL DIMENSION TO THIS AS WELL?
02:14:28 Baumgartner, Daniel WE CERTAINLY GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN OUR TRAINING TO LOOK AT THE MORAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND HOW WE TREAT OUR STUDENTS AND HOW THE TRAINING IS STRUCTURED SO THEY GET THE BEST LEARNING OUT OF IT NOW. IN A DETENTION SITUATION, ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S NOT MY REALM OF EXPERTISE.
02:14:49 Pryor, Mark IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT YOU USE IN THE SERE TRAINING DO VIOLATE THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL, U.S. LAW AND THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
02:15:07 Baumgartner, Daniel ONE, SIR, I DON'T THINK WE CONDUCT TRAINING THAT'S GOING TO VIOLATE U.S. LAW. TWO, I'M NOT GOING TO TORTURE
02:15:15 Pryor, Mark I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I MEAN YOU'RE SIMULATING TECHNIQUES THAT MAY BE USED AGAINST THEM --
02:15:22 Baumgartner, Daniel WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE IN THAT STUDENT'S AN ENVIRONMENT, A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THEY HAVE TO PRACTICE, LIKE DR. OGRISSEG SAID, THE STRATEGIES THEY'RE OFFERED IN TRAINING BEFORE THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE IT FOR REAL, BOTH IN TRAINING AND THEN DOWNSTREAM IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE TAKEN CAPTIVE.
02:15:44 Pryor, Mark BUT SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU'RE TRYING TO SIMILARULATE WOULD VIOLATE THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL --
02:15:48 Baumgartner, Daniel WE ARE SIMULATING AN ENEMY THAT IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. THAT'S TRUE.
02:15:55 Pryor, Mark DID YOU GET THE IMPRESSION AT YOUR TENURE THERE THAT -- WHEN DID YOU FIND OUT THAT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WAS TRYING TO TAKE WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING IN THE SERE PROGRAM AND USE IT OFFENSIVELY WITH DETAINEES? WHEN DID YOU DISCOVER THAT?
02:16:18 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, THE REQUEST FOR THE INFORMATION LIKE DR. OGRISSEG SAID, IT WASN'T FOR TRAINING. THEREFORE, IT HAD TO BE FOR OUR DECISION MAKERS TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OR WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO USE IN TERMS OF TECHNIQUES.
02:16:31 Pryor, Mark WHAT I'M ASKING IS DID YOU KNOW ABOUT IT -- DID YOU KNOW AT THE TIME WHEN YOU'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION THAT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WAS WORKING ON A NEW POLICY ON HOW WE WERE GOING TO TREAT DETAINEES?
02:16:44 Baumgartner, Daniel I DIDN'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, SENATOR. BUT LIKE I SAID, I HAD AN IDEA THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT AS A MATTER OF POLICY WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE U.S. TO USE.
02:16:54 Pryor, Mark DID YOU EVER OFFER ANY OPINION ABOUT WHAT YOU FELT WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE
02:16:58 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SENATOR. WE WERE NOT PART OF THAT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AT ALL.
02:17:02 Pryor, Mark SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR TESTIMONY IS YOU JUST PROVIDED THE INFORMATION --
02:17:05 Baumgartner, Daniel WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION AND AFTER THAT WE WERE NOT IN THAT LOOP ANYMORE.
02:17:09 Pryor, Mark MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
02:17:17 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR PRYOR. SENATOR REED.
02:17:19 Reed, Jack THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL BAUMGARTNER, DID ANYONE OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EVER ASK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION THAT YOU SENT TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFF WHICH IS A LIST OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES AND THE MEMO FROM DR. OGRISSEG?
02:17:33 Baumgartner, Daniel WE HAD SUPPORT REQUESTS FROM, LIKE I SAID, THE DI AFRNLTSA AND ALSO FROM ANOTHER AGENCY --
02:17:40 Reed, Jack WHAT'S THE OTHER AGENCY?
02:17:42 Baumgartner, Daniel I THINK THAT DISCUSSION MIGHT GO INTO CLASSIFIED, SIR.
02:17:45 Reed, Jack DID YOU SEND THOSE -- THE INFORMATION?
02:17:47 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR, WE DID.
02:17:48 Reed, Jack THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A LINE OF QUESTIONING VERY BRIEFLY THAT SENATOR PRYOR IN YOUR RESPONSE CONFIRMED IN MY EXPERIENCE AFTER 12 YEARS IN THE ARMY IS THE BASIC PREMISE OF SERE TRAINING IS OUR ENEMIES WILL NOT FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION, SOME OF THEM. THEY WILL NOT FOLLOW ANY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL CONDUCT AND I JUST ASK YOU, I'LL START WITH YOU, COLONEL, IF THAT'S THE PREMISE THAT ALL OF THESE TECHNIQUES ARE, PER SE, VIOLATIVE OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OR CERTAINLY WITHOUT SOME MODIFICATIONS OR SOME SORT OF CHANGES, WHAT WAS THE LOGIC OF TRYING INTO CORP RATE THEM IN THE OUR INTERROGATION PRACTICES? COLONEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?
02:18:42 Baumgartner, Daniel I'M REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT, SIR. WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL. WE HAD THAT INFORMATION BASED ON OUR TRAINING, BASED ON THE RESEARCH AND CONDUCTING THIS TRAINING FOR 53 YEARS. AND SO WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION. AFTER THAT POINT, IT'S NOT UP TO DAN BAUMGARTNER WHAT THEY DO WITH IT.
02:19:06 Reed, Jack NO. BUT SIR, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THE PREMISE IS THAT OUR ADVERSARIES WOULD LIKELY NOT FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE RULES OF WAR. IS THAT CORRECT?
02:19:20 Baumgartner, Daniel I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE ADVERSARY ADVERSARY. OUR CURRENT ADVERSARY, THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.
02:19:25 Reed, Jack YOU'RE TRAINING NOT AGAINST ADVERSARIES -- YOU WERE TRAINING AGAINST THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT OUR ADVERSARIES WOULD NOT FOLLOW --
02:19:32 Baumgartner, Daniel ABSOLUTELY, SIR, ABSOLUTELY.
02:19:33 Reed, Jack THE THRUST OF THE TRAINING WAS TO PREPARE THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE WORST CASE, NOT FOR THE BEST CASE.
02:19:38 Baumgartner, Daniel RIGHT, SIR.
02:19:39 Reed, Jack WHICH LEADS AGAIN TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE TECHNIQUES ARE PROBABLY VIOLATIVE OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. DID IT EVER CROSS YOUR MIND WHEN YOU WERE SENDING THIS INFORMATION OVER TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE WHY THEY NEEDED IT? DID YOU EVER -- YOU JUST QUIETLY, DIDN'T RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHY DO THEY NEED THIS?
02:20:03 Baumgartner, Daniel WHEN YOU'RE ASKED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AT THE LEVEL THAT WE R THEY NEEDED THE INFORMATION AND, QUITE FRANKLY, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH IT, THAT THE THEY WERE GOING TO USE -- WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DECIDE NOT TO USE, AND WHAT THE COUNTRY WOULD USE THAT INFORMATION OR THE ADMINISTRATION USE THAT INFORMATIOIOFOR IN TERMSMS O MAMAKING DEDESION. SOSO WN I'M'M T TASKE BYIGHER HEADADARARRSRS TOROVIDEDE INFORMATION N EY CANAN LEGIGIMAMALYLY VEVE, I CAN'T TURN AROUND AND TELL THELAG OFFICERS AND THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE GUYS NO.
02:20:37 Reed, Jack NO ONE WAS SUGGESTION J JESTING TH Y YOU WERE NOT COMPLYING WITH EE LEGITATATE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT YOU DID, BUT DID IT -- DID ANYO I IN YOUR ORGANIZATION STT OF ASK THE QUESTION AROUND THE WATER COOLER, WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON?
02:20:51 Baumgartner, Daniel OF COURSE, WE DID. WE HAVE EXPERTS IN EXPLOITATION, WE HAVE EXPERTS IN INTERROGATION METHODS AND QUESTIONING AND EVERYTHING THAT SURROUNDS SERE TRAINING. OF COURSE, IT WAS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST TO US HOW THE UNITED STATES WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION.
02:21:08 Reed, Jack DID YOU THINK ON YOUR EXPERTISE THAT IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE TO INCORPORATE THESE TECHNIQUES AND COMPLY WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTION?
02:21:16 Baumgartner, Daniel NEVER REALLY CAME TO CONCLUSIONS. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCLUSION. NOT A LOT OF CONCLUSIONS. WHEN YOU GO TO WAR, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO DETAINEE TREATMENT. USUALLY IT'S BEST TO DO THAT AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE YOU GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THINGS.
02:21:34 Reed, Jack LET ME, MR. SHIF HER, ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION, WITH RESPECT TO THIS TYPE OF TRAINING, OUR ADVERSARIES, AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, WOULD NOT FOLLOW ANY RULES OF CIVILIZED CONDUCT. IS THAT A FAIR JUDGMENT?
02:21:51 Shiffrin, Richard MY PERSONAL VIEW, YES. I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT AT THE TIME. BUT I UNDERSTAND IT'S WHAT -- AS I UNDERSTAND THE TRAINING, IT'S PRETTY WIDE RANGING. IF I MAY JUST OFFER ONE POINT. A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I WAS PRIVY TO WAS NOT THE IDEA OF HARSH TREATMENT, BUT BEING ABLE TO OFFER KARATS. THERE WERE LOOT OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT IF WE OFFERED SOME INDUCEMENT TO DETAINEES, CABLE TV, AN EXTRA PILLOW --
02:22:22 Reed, Jack THOSE INDUCEMENTS DIDN'T SEEM TO APPEAR IN THE CATEGORY ONE, TWO AND THREE RECOMMENDATIONS.
02:22:26 Shiffrin, Richard NO. I'M SAYING FROM AN ABSTRACT POINT OF VIEW, A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE OR NOT, WHEN YOU SAY LET'S FIND OUT EVERYTHING THERE IS OUT THERE ON THE SUBJECT, I ASSUMED SOME OF IT WOULD BE, WELL, YOU CAN OFFER INDUCEMENT S INDUCEMENTS.
02:22:48 Reed, Jack THE SUBJECT MIGHT BE DEBATABLE DEBATABLE. GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE THIS MORNING.
02:22:59 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR SESSIONS.
02:23:00 Sessions, Jeff THANK YOU. MR. SHIFFRIN, WOULD YOU TELL US AGAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION WAS AT THIS TIME AND WHO YOU REPORTED TO?
02:23:14 Shiffrin, Richard I TOOK THE POSITION OF DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR INTELLIGENCE IN --
02:23:18 Sessions, Jeff OR DOD.
02:23:23 Shiffrin, Richard DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN DECEMBER OF 1997. I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHERE I WAS AT O LFRMTHSC. AND I HAD THAT POSITION UNTIL I WAS DEMOTED OR TRANSFERRED AT THE END OF 2002. AND I THEN BECAME THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL AT DIA FOR MY LAST SIX MONTHS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND I RETIRED --
02:23:52 Sessions, Jeff WELL, LET ME JUST ASK YOU A COUPLE OF THINGS. WERE YOU AWARE THAT THESE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE EVENTUALLY APPROVED AND THEN MODIFIED FOR GUANTANAMO INTERROGATIONS, THAT WAS BASED ON A REQUEST FROM THE COMMANDING GENERAL OR THE COMMANDER SOMEBODY AT GUANTANAMO. WERE YOU THERE WHEN THAT CAME UP?
02:24:27 Shiffrin, Richard I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THE TECHNIQUES OR ANYTHING BEING USED, METHODOLOGY OR ANYTHING AT GUANTANAMO.
02:24:36 Sessions, Jeff WELL, I'M TAKE A MOMENT. I KNOW THERE WILL BE OTHER PANELS AFTERWARDS. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS, ON BEHALF O OL OF THE MILITARY AND THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO TRIED TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY, THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD HAPPENED. THERE WERE THREE INCIDENCES OF THIS SO-CALLED WATERBOARDING ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. NONE OF THEM WERE DONE AT GUANTANAMO AND NONE OF THEM WERE DONE BY THE FBI. WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE MILITARY WAS WORKING TO DEAL WITH A SMALL BUT VALUABLE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD THEY BELIEVED CRITICAL INFORMATION. ONE WAS THE SO-CALLED 20th HIGHJACKER THAT MET MOHAMMED ATTA IN THE UNITED STATES AND HE WAS EVENTUALLY CAPTURED. HE DIDN'T GO TO TO ATTACK THE CAPITOL OR THE WHITE HOUSE. HE WAS CAPTURED IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN AND BROUGHT BACK OVER HERE PS. DURING THAT TIME THE INTERROGATORS ASKED FOR AUTHORITY TO INTERROGATE AGGRESSIVELY. ARE ANY OF YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PERSONALLY?
02:25:55 Sessions, Jeff THEY ASKED FOR IT. IT WENT TO THE CHIEF COUNSELOR. THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THE LAWYERS AND REVIEWED IT. AND THEY APPROVED NOT ALL THAT THEY REQUESTED. MR. HAYNES APPROVED SOME OF THOSE TECHNIQUES AND HE DENIED SOME OF THOSE TECHNIQUES. THEN AFTER THAT OTHER JAG OFFICERS OBJECTED AND THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THOSE APPROVED WENT TOO FAR AND A WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LISTENED TO THAT GROUP, AND IT WAS ALL OPENLY DISCUSSED AMONG JAG OFFICERS AT THE FLAIF I HAVE, AIR FORCE AND ARMY, AND THEY CUT BACK ON THOSE. BUT I WOULD POINT OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE, ISN'T IT MR. SHIFFRIN, THE HAM DAN CASE THAT RULED ON ARTICLE THREE? THAT WAS TWO YEARS LATER, WAS IT NOT.
02:26:50 Shiffrin, Richard I HAVE TO CONFESS I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE OF THE CASE.
02:26:55 Sessions, Jeff SEVERAL YEARS LATER, PROBABLY TWO OR THREE YEARS LATER THAT THAT CASE CAME OUT. THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER A PIECE OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SUPPORTED BY OUR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SENATOR LEAHY, BIDEN AND KENNEDY AND SENATE SENATOR LEVIN AND OTHERS WHO WERE PRESENT IN CONGRESS AT THAT TIME. IT DEFINED TORTURE AND PROHIBITED TORTURE, BUT IT DIDN'T JUST PROHIBIT ISOLATION OR IT DIDN'T PROHIBIT STRESS TECHNIQUES. IT SAID YOU COULD NOT SUBJECT SOMEONE TO SEVERE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING. SO THAT WAS AN OPERABLE TUT, WAS IT NOT, ALL ALONG. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW THAT? THAT ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT THEY'RE WRESTLING WITH. NOW, MR. GOLDSMITH WHO WAS OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, WAS HE NOT, MR. SHIFFRIN? IS THAT WHAT HIS TITLE WAS? IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?
02:27:56 Shiffrin, Richard HE WAS THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, YES.
02:28:00 Sessions, Jeff RIGHT, LEGAL COUNSEL. HE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THESE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE USED, AND HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT, "THE TERROR OF PRESIDENCY." THIS IS WHAT HE SAID IN HIS BOOK, HE'S BEEN WIDELY RENOWN AS A CRITIC OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. HE SAID THIS AS TO THE LAWYERS AND TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, QUOTE, MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD BEEN INDIFFERENT TO THESE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM. IN MY EXPERIENCE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PAID SCRUPULOUS ATTENTION TO THE LAW, CLOSED QUOTE. HE GOES ON TO ADD, QUOTE, MANY PEOPLE THINK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN INDIFFERENT TO WARTIME LEGAL CONSTRAINTS. BUT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN STRANGLED BY LAW AND SINCE SEPTEMBER 11th 2RKS 001, THIS WAR HAS BEEN LAWYERED TO DEATH, CLOSED QUOTE. SO ALL I WOULD SAY TO MY DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN WHO HAS CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO ALL OF THESE MATTERS, I WOULD JUST SAY TRUTHFULLY, WHETHER THESE LEGAL OPINIONS WERE CORRECT OR WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT LATER CHANGED THE LAW, AND THEY DID CHANGE THE LAW, AND SEVERAL IMPORTANT ASPECTS. IT'S UNFAIR TO HOLD THE MILITARY ACCOUNTABLE IF YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENT LAW AND IT'S LATER CHANGED. WE'VE GOT A SITUATION IN WHICH THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND FELT THEY WERE DEALING WITH SOME HIGH-VALUED TARGETS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROVED CERTAIN TECHNIQUES THAT THEY FELT DID NOT VIOLATE THE TERRORISM STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS SEVERE PAIN BEING INFLICTED. IT DIDN'T SAY YOU COULDN'T STRESS AN INDIVIDUAL OR OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IF WE WENT TOO PARTICULAR ON SOME OF THOSE AREAS, I HOPE WE DIDN'T. BUT IF HE DID, THEN I THINK IN THE PROCESS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND ALL THESE HEARINGS AND ALL FOR GOODNESS SAKES WE'RE CERTAINLY DOING MUCH BETTER IN THAT REGARD. BUT IT IS NOT THE KIND OF ROGUE ACTIVITY THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED. THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. OUR MILITARY FELT THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS THREATENED AFTER 9/11. THEY WERE ABLE TO APPREHEND SOME OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THAT, AND THEY DESPERATELY WANTED INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE SURE IF THERE WAS ANOTHER SELL GROUP OUT THERE PLANNING A SIMILAR ATTACK, THEY COULD BE STOPPED. AND I BELIEVE THEY CONSULTED THE LEGAL SYSTEM ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE WE CAN CREATE A POLICY THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON. BUT I JUST DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO DISRESPECT OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHO HAVE DONE THEIR BEST TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY AT A TIME WHEN THIS NATION SAW ITSELF UNDER REAL THREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
02:31:07 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. SENATOR McCASS KILL.
02:31:10 McCaskill, Claire WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MY FRIEND FROM ALABAMA I THINK WE DISRESPECT THE MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS HEARING. I THINK THIS HEARING IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE MEN AND WOMEN AND THE RULE OF LAW THAT THEY STAND FOR AND FOR THE KIND OF DEMOCRACY THAT WE WANT TO BE AND THAT WE WANT THE REST OF THE WORLD TO BE. MR. SHIFFRIN, I KNOW YOU ARE A LAWYER. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, DID YOU REVIEW THE LEGAL MEMORANDUM THAT WAS WRITTEN BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER THAT ISSUED THE OPINION THAT THESE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES OF INTERROGATION WERE, IN FACT, LEGAL UNDER
02:31:45 Shiffrin, Richard NO.
02:31:48 McCaskill, Claire HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?
02:31:49 Shiffrin, Richard NO. TO THE TO MY RECOLLECTION.
02:31:52 McCaskill, Claire IF YOU WERE READING A LEGAL DOCUMENT AS A TRAINED LAWYER AND YOU CAME ACROSS THE PHRASE "IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE," WOULD IT CAUSE YOU PAUSE?
02:32:04 Shiffrin, Richard YES, IN THE MY FORMER LIFE I WAS A PROSECUTOR.
02:32:06 McCaskill, Claire ME, TOO.
02:32:09 Shiffrin, Richard AND THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE SCRUPULOUSLY AVOIDED, AT LEAST MY TRAINING WAS.
02:32:15 McCaskill, Claire IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET ON THE RECORD WHAT IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE ACTUALLY CONTEMPLATES. IF THE I WERE A POLICE OFFICER OR I WERE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND I SAID TO SOMEONE, NOW, IF YOU GO DRIVE THE GET-AWAY CAR FOR THE ARMED ROBBERY AND AFTERWARDS IF YOU TELL US ALL ABOUT IT, WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT PROSECUTED FOR THE ARMED ROBBERY. THAT WOULD, IN FACT, BE IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE, WOULDN'T IT?
02:32:46 Shiffrin, Richard THAT WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE, YES.
02:32:48 McCaskill, Claire WHAT YOU'D REALLY BE DOING AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT OR AS AN OFFICER SWORN TO UPHOLD THE UNIFORM MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE IS YOU WOULD BE SAYING AHEAD OF TIME, IT'S OKAY IF YOU BREAK THE LAW.
02:33:04 Shiffrin, Richard YOU'RE SAYING WHETHER IT'S LEGALLY EFFECTIVE OR NOT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
02:33:11 McCaskill, Claire THAT'S ANOTHER WHOLE LINE OF QUESTIONING. I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT PHRASE AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY LAWYER WHO WOULD READ THE PHRASE WOULD GO, WHAT PLANET ARE WE ON? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE. THAT WOULD BE A CRIME.
02:33:31 Shiffrin, Richard I CAN SAY FROM THE MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I NEVER USED OR MADE SURE THAT IT WAS NEVER USED GIVING SOMEONE IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE.
02:33:42 McCaskill, Claire IN FACT, AS I JUST SAID, IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY VISITS WITH SOMEONE ABOUT COMMITTING A CRIME AND SAYS DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU IMMUNITY, WOULDN'T THEY, UNDER OUR PRINCIPLES OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY BE GUILTY OF A CRIME?
02:34:01 Shiffrin, Richard THEY COULD BE SENATE STORE TORE. THAT'S.
02:34:04 McCaskill, Claire THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE. THIS LEGAL MEMORANDUM THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR OUR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO SAY TO PUT SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE NAKED AND SICK DOGS ON THEM CONTAINED A LEGAL THEORY CALLED IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE AND NO ONE -- I ASSUME YOU NEVER HAD A DISCUSSION WITH YOUR BOSS WHO GOT THIS MEMO ABOUT THIS --
02:34:29 Shiffrin, Richard THAT'S CORRECT.
02:34:33 Shiffrin, Richard THAT'S CORRECT.
02:34:38 McCaskill, Claire HAS HE HAD EXPERIENCE AS A PROSECUTOR IN A CRIMINAL COURTROOM?
02:34:42 McCaskill, Claire I DON'T RECALL. IT'S JUST MIND-BOGGLING TO ME THAT THAT PHRASE WOULD BE WRITTEN AND THAT NO ONE WOULD HEAR THE RAGING SIRENS AND FLASHING RED LIGHTS THAT THAT PHRASE WOULD, IN FACT, EMBRACE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. LET ME ASK YOU. WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT GAVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE DIFFERENT OR MORE AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES? WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
02:35:16 Shiffrin, Richard I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAID. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IN DISCUSSION -- BEING IN MEETINGS WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. I MENTIONED MEETINGS WHEN GENERAL DUNLEAVY WOULD REPORT, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROGRESS OR SOMETIMES THE LACK OF PROGRESS IN OBTAINING USEFUL ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE OUT OF DETAINEES. THE MEETINGS WERE USUALLY CHAIRED BY JIM HAYNES. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ANY THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX OTHER LAWYERS THERE.
02:35:44 McCaskill, Claire COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NAMES OF THE OTHER LAWYERS THAT WERE THERE WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS IMPRESSION, THAT WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE DOING IN TERMS OF OUR INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES BESIDES JIM HAYNES? WHO WAS IN THE ROOM?
02:35:58 Shiffrin, Richard AGAIN, THE WAY I CHARACTERIZED IT IS THERE WAS SOME FRUSTRATION WITH THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF INFORMATION BEING OBTAINED. I DIDN'T SAY WE NEEDED TO CHANGE TECHNIQUES. LAWYERS WHO WERE PARTICIPATING IN THAT -- THERE WAS DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR LEGAL COUNSEL WHIT COBB. I BELIEVE THAT THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, CHARLES ALLEN WAS PROBABLY IN SOME OF THESE MEETINGS. THERE WAS A MAUREEN -- MARINE MAJOR LIEUTENANT COLONEL WHO WORKED IN THE LEGAL COUNSEL OFFICE BILL LIETSAU. I CAN'T ATTRIBUTE ANY PARTICULAR STATEMENT TO ANY OF THEM. THERE'S A LAWYER WHO IS NOW MY SUCCESSOR IN INTELLIGENCE, ELIANA DAVIDSON WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME OF THE DETAINEE OPERATIONS MATTERS. I THINK THOSE WERE THE LAWYERS WHO AT LEAST WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE TIME THESE DISCUSSIONS TOOK PLACE.
02:37:17 McCaskill, Claire WERE YOU EVER PRESENT IN A MEETING WITH MR. HAYNES AT OR NEAR OR AFTER THE TIME HE RECOMMENDED HIS SECRETARY -- TO SECRETARY RUMSFELD THAT HE APPROVE MOST OF THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, SOME HE DIDN'T APPROVE IN CATEGORY NUMBER THREE, BUT HE CERTAINLY APPROVED HOODING NAKED PEOPLE AND SICKING DOGS ON THEM.
02:37:39 Shiffrin, Richard IF YOU GAVE ME -- I, OF COURSE, MET WITH MR. HAYNES EVERY DAY.
02:37:43 McCaskill, Claire I CAN GIVE YOU THE DATE. THE DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN -- HE RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL OF THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT HAD BEEN DEEMED LEGAL IN THE SAME MEMORANDUM THAT TALKED ABOUT IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE ON NOVEMBER 27th, 2002, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2nd, 2002.
02:38:05 Shiffrin, Richard I DON'T REMEMBER HAVING -- BEING PART OF A DISCUSSION ON THEM. I HAVE A VAGUE RECOLLECTION OF HEARING THAT THE MEMORANDUM HAD BEEN APPROVED.
02:38:17 McCaskill, Claire AND SO YOU WERE AWARE THE MEMORANDUM EXISTED?
02:38:19 Shiffrin, Richard YES. BUT I COULD HAVE BEEN AWARE IN THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY OR LATER. IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF A CONTEMPORARY RAIN YOUS OF IT.
02:38:30 McCaskill, Claire I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY A GOOD LAWYER AND YOU CARE DEEPLY ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY. I'M TRYING NOT TO BE -- WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE WHO DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD AND WHEN DID IT GET DECIDED.
02:38:50 Shiffrin, Richard IT WASN'T ME, SENATOR.
02:38:52 McCaskill, Claire I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU WERE MUCH CLOSER TO IT THAN ANY OF US WERE. WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT DID THIS COME FROM DICK CHENEY TO RUMSFELD? MR. ADDING TON IS STILL AT THE HOUSE. DID THIS COME FROM GONZALEZ'S SHOP? MICHAEL CHERTOFF WAS DOWN AT THE MEETING IN GET MO TALKING ABOUT THIS. THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PERIPHERY OF THIS THAT ARE IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TODAY IN OUR GOVERNMENT. SO OUR FRUSTRATION IS WE WOULD LIKE TO HOLD SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE. IT'S LIKE TRYING TO CATCH SHADOWS HERE BECAUSE NO ONE IS WILLING TO SAY WHERE THIS CAME FROM, THIS MOVE TOWARD IMPLODING THE TRADITIONS OF OUR COUNTRY IN TERMS OF THE EXAMPLE WE SET FOR THE WORLD.
02:39:43 Shiffrin, Richard THE ONLY OTHER EXPLANATION I CAN OFFER, SENATOR, IS THAT THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE OFTEN OPERATED IN A SORT OF COMPARTMENTIZED FASHION, THAT IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL FOR ME TO GET A REQUEST FROM JIM HAYNES TO, FOR EXAMPLE, SEE WHAT INFORMATION I COULD FIND OUT ABOUT INTERROGATION AND JPRA AND SERE. I'D FIND OUT ACCIDENTALLY TWO WEEKS LATER THAT SOMEONE ELSE WAS DOING THE SAME THING, OR THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE USED AT GUANTANAMO, I MIGHT FIND OUT SIX MONTHS LATER AND NEVER HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE -- NEVER BE PART OF ANY DISCUSSION THAT, OH, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH IT. THE QUESTION WAS, CAN YOU FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANY MATERIAL THAT IS AVAILABLE ON EFFECTIVE INTERROGATION?
02:40:36 Shiffrin, Richard YES, SIR, I CAN.
02:40:38 McCaskill, Claire THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
02:40:42 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR.
02:40:44 Levin, Carl SENATOR MARTINEZ IS NEXT.
02:40:45 Martinez, Mel MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT IS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT IN THIS VERY DIFFICULT SUBJECT WHICH WE'RE TREATING. I KNOW THAT MANY WELL-INTENDED PEOPLE WERE DEALING UNDER INCREDIBLY STRESSFUL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE NEED TO OBTAIN ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE SO OUR COUNTRY COULD BE PROTECTED WAS I KNOW UPPER MOST IN THEIR MIND. OBVIOUSLY MISTAKES HAVE HARMED OUR NATION WERE PROBABLY MADE, AND AS I THINK ONE OF OUR NEXT WITNESSES WILL STRUS, ACTIONS WERE CRUEL, ARE NOT A PART OF WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT. WITH THAT, WITH THIS PANEL, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE CURRENT PANEL, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
02:41:37 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. WE JUST HAVE A BRIEF SECOND ROUND. MR. SHIFFRIN, COLONEL BAUMGARTNER TESTIFIED THAT YOU ASKED FOR A LIST OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES RELATIVE TO INTERROGATION. THAT'S HIS TESTIMONY TODAY.
02:41:56 Levin, Carl YOU DENY IT?
02:41:57 Shiffrin, Richard I DON'T RECALL IT. I NOTE THAT THE MEMO THAT YOU REFERRED TO IN THE BOOK IS NOT DIRECTED TO ME. IT'S DIRECTED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL.
02:42:03 Levin, Carl I UNDERSTAND. BUT I'M ASKING YOU, THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT YOU REQUESTED IT FROM HIM, THAT LIST.
02:42:11 Shiffrin, Richard I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER USED THE TERM PHYSICAL PRESSURES. I BELIEVE THE ONLY THING I EVER ASKED FOR AFTER THE INITIAL TRENCH WAS HOW TO -- BRIEFINGS, MANUALS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD NEVER SAY -- I DON'T THINK I EVER SAID I NEED SOMETHING ON PHYSICAL PRESSURE BECAUSE I HAD NO --
02:42:32 Levin, Carl COLONEL, DO YOU STICK TO YOUR TESTIMONY?
02:42:38 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:42:42 Shiffrin, Richard SENATOR, MAY I ADD ONE THING?
02:42:43 Levin, Carl SURE.
02:42:46 Shiffrin, Richard THE MEMO REFERS TO A FOLLOW-ON QUESTION RESULTING FROM A MEETING WITH JPRA AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL, OSD GENERAL COUNSEL. THAT WOULD BE MR. HAYNES. I'VE NEVER MET IN PERSON COLONEL BAUMGARTNER BEFORE. I DID NOT ATTEND A MEETING WITH COLONEL BAUMGARTNER. TO THE EXTENT THESE MEMOS ARE RESPONSIVE TO REQUESTS AT A MEETING, I DIDN'T ATTEND THAT MEETING.
02:43:17 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. I THINK COLONEL BAUMGARTNER WAS REFERRING TO A PHONE CONVERSATION.
02:43:21 Shiffrin, Richard HE DID. BUT THE MEMO ITSELF SAYS THIS IS FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS FROM A MEETING. I.
02:43:28 Levin, Carl I THINK HIS TESTIMONY RELATES
02:43:30 Shiffrin, Richard I UNDERSTAND.
02:43:33 Levin, Carl YOU DENY THAT YOU USED THE TERMS PHYSICAL PRESSURES AND HE STICKS TO HIS TESTIMONY. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE. DID HE ASK YOU FOR A LIST OF CARROTS. YOU WERE NEVER ASKED FOR A LIST OF CARROTS, WERE YOU?
02:43:44 Shiffrin, Richard NO. BUT MR. HAYNES?
02:43:48 Levin, Carl BY ANYBODY.
02:43:49 Shiffrin, Richard THE ONLY DISCUSSION I SPECIFICALLY RECALL HAVING WAS WITH MAJOR GENERAL DUNLEAVY.
02:43:57 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU -- COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED YOU'RE VERY -- IN A VERY FORTH COMING WAY THAT THE USE OF THESE TACTICS OFFENSIVE WAY WAS NOT WHAT THIS PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO DO. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO USE THE TACTICS IN THE SERE PROGRAM AGAINST DETAINEES. IS THAT CORRECT? OFFENSIVELY?
02:44:23 Baumgartner, Daniel MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE I SAID WE DEVELOPED THESE TACTICS FOR USE IN TRAINING. THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE, AND TO EXPORT THEM IS THE DECISION OF FOLKS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
02:44:36 Levin, Carl BUT YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPORT OF THOSE IS NOT THE WAY THE PROGRAM IS DESIGNED; IS THAT CORRECT?
02:44:44 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR. NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT -- LET ME JUST REFER YOU TO TO -- DO YOU KNOW WHO MAJOR GENERAL JAMES CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE JOINT
02:45:08 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:45:11 Levin, Carl THAT IS THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY'S HIGHER
02:45:15 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:45:17 Levin, Carl THE MEMORANDUM I REFERRED TO IN MY OPENING STATEMENT WHERE HE SAYS THE USE OF RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATION, KNOWLEDGE FOR OFFENSIVE PURPOSES LIES OUTSIDE OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF JPRA. DID YOU HEAR ME QUOTE FROM HIS HIS MEMO ON THAT?
02:45:30 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:45:32 Levin, Carl DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
02:45:33 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, I WASN'T PRIVY --
02:45:36 Levin, Carl BUT YOU AGREE IT'S OUTSIDE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JPRA, RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATION KNOWLEDGE FOR OFFENSIVE PURPOSES LIES OUTSIDE THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF JPRA?
02:45:47 Baumgartner, Daniel I WOULD SAY LIKE MY COMMANDER'S PHILOSOPHY WAS WHEN I WAS STILL ACTIVE DUTY, USE OF OUR GUY GUIDES OFFENSIVE MANNER WAS NOT WHAT WE WERE ALL ABOUT. WE WERE ABOUT TRAINING.
02:46:02 Levin, Carl NOW, WHEN THAT WAS MISUSED IN THAT WAY, WHICH IT OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN FROM EVERYONE'S TESTIMONY HERE AND FROM THE MATERIAL THAT I PRESENTED, HAS ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MISUSE OF THAT PROGRAM? IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE USED OFFENSIVELY, IT WAS. DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISUSE OF THAT PROGRAM? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
02:46:29 Baumgartner, Daniel I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY OF THAT, NO.
02:46:32 Levin, Carl ARE YOU AWARE FOR THE FACT THAT THE SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING TECHNIQUES MADE THEIR WAY TO IRAQ AND THE WAY I DESCRIBE IT, ALSO INSTRUCTORS FROM THE JPRA SERE SCHOOL WENT TO IRAQ AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTED IN SEPTEMBER OF '03 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMANDER OF THE SPECIAL MISSION UNIT TASK FORCE, THE JPRA EMPLOYED A TEAM TO IRAQ --
02:47:02 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, I WAS RETIRED BY THEN.
02:47:03 Levin, Carl I UNDERSTAND. BUT ASSISTANCE TO INTERROGATION OPERATIONS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF JPRA --
02:47:09 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
02:47:10 Levin, Carl I KNOW. BUT YOU DO HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM?
02:47:17 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, IFLS NOT PART OF THAT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT.
02:47:22 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ASSISTANCE TO INTERROGATION OPERATIONS, BEING PRESENT IN INTERROGATIONS IS PART OF THE PROGRAM?
02:47:28 Baumgartner, Daniel SIR, I WAS NOT PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT LED TO THE DECISION TO SEND THOSE FOLKS, WHETHER THEY WENT OR NOT.
02:47:35 Levin, Carl I'M AWARE OF THAT FACT. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH GENERAL SOLOGAN ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF RESISTANCE TO INTERROGATION KNOWLEDGE FOR OFFENSIVE PURPOSES LIES OUTSIDE THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF JPRA? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM?
02:47:52 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SIR. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT THE GENERAL SAYS, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THEY WERE UNDER HIS CONTROL, CERTAINLY NOT MINE.
02:48:01 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY COMMANDER, LIEUTENANT GENERAL WAGNER, WHEN HE SAID RELATIVE TO INTERROGATION CAPABILITY, THE EXPERTISE OF JPRA LIES IN TRAINING PERSONNEL HOW TO RESPOND AND RESIST INTERROGATION, NOT ON HOW TO CONDUCT INTERROGATIONS. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
02:48:18 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:48:19 Levin, Carl DO YOU AGREE WHAT HE SAID FLOG THE REQUEST FOR JPRA INTERROGATION SUPPORT WERE BOTH INCONSISTENT WITH THE UNIT'S CHARTER AND MIGHT CREATE CONDITIONS WHICH TASK JPRA TO ENGAGE IN OFFENSIVE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF JPRA'S DEFENSIVE MISSION?
02:48:36 Baumgartner, Daniel THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAD IN POLICY WHEN I WAS ACTIVE DUTY.
02:48:40 Levin, Carl ARE YOU -- AGAIN, I WANT TO ASK YOU -- I KNOW YOU WEREN'T THERE, BUT DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THE CHARTER OF JPRA AND ITS PURPOSE WAS VIOLATED AND IT WAS MISUSED? I'M ASKING YOU DO YOU KNOW OF ANY --
02:49:06 Baumgartner, Daniel I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE, SIR.
02:49:09 Levin, Carl SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID THE OTHER DAY WHEN HE FIRED TWO TOP OFFICIALS, SECRETARY GATES SAID THAT DURING HIS TENURE, QUOTE, I'VE EMPHASIZED TO ALL SERVICES THAT ACCOUNTABILITY MUCH REACH ALL THE WAY UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THAT MILITARY AS A WHOLE MUST BE WILLING TO ADMIT MISTAKES WHEN THEY'RE MADE. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX IT AND TO ENSURE THEY DON'T REOCCUR IN THE FUTURE. WHEN SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS ARE FOUND, I BELIEVE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY MUST REACH BEYOND NCOs AND EVEN COLONELS. IT SURE AS HECK HASN'T IN THIS SITUATION YET. AT LEAST THAT ANYBODY KNOWS OF, UNLESS ANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES KNOW OF ANYBODY HERE THAT'S BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF JPRA'S MANDATE, PURPOSE AND MISSION. WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY. THAT KIND OF GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM HERE. SENATOR CORNER?
02:50:08 Warner, John THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY TODAY THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WAS INFORMATION THAT YOU GATHSERRED FROM THE JPRA AND SERE INTERROGATION METHODS SHARED WITH ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT. YOUR RESPONSE WAS THE DIA WHICH WAS CLEAR AND ANOTHER RECIPIENT WHICH IS OF A CLASSIFIED NATURE. THE QUESTION I WISH TO PUSH FURTHER ON THAT, THIS QUESTION, IF IT WERE ASKED, WAS THE INFORMATION YOU GATHERED, IN WHAT FORM DID YOU CONVEY THAT INFORMATION TO THOSE TWO ENTITIES? WAS IT A WRITTEN MEMORANDUM?
02:50:58 Baumgartner, Daniel THERE IS SOME WRITTEN INFORMATION. AND THEY REQUESTED BRIEFINGS.
02:51:06 Warner, John IS THERE ANY EXISTENCE A DOCUMENT THAT'S IN WRITING AS TO WHAT WENT TO THESE TWO RECIPIENTS? IS THAT CORRECT?
02:51:13 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR, I BELIEVE THERE IS.
02:51:18 Warner, John MR. CHAIRMAN, DO WE HAVE THAT AMONG OUR FILE?
02:51:46 Levin, Carl SENATOR, I BELIEVE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION IN OUR POSSESSION OF THAT. HOWEVER, THERE IS TESTIMONY IN OUR POSSESSION, I BELIEVE, THAT IS CLASSIFIED.
02:51:55 Warner, John IS IT THE DESIRE OF THE COMMITTEE THEN TO HAVE SNOEZ DOCUMENTS?
02:51:59 Levin, Carl IF THERE ARE SUCH DOCUMENTS, OF COURSE. WE'VE ASKED FOR DOCUMENTS. BY THE WAY, HOW MANY CAME IN LAST WEEK? 38,000 DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED TO US THIS WEEK BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT'S IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. THEY SURE ARE ABOUT A YEAR LATE. PUTTING THAT ASIDE, I REALLY -- WE CAN'T ANSWER WHAT IS IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A DOCUMENT YET WHICH CONTAINS THAT INFORMATION. BUT AGAIN I WOULD REITERATE WE DO HAVE TESTIMONY.
02:52:32 Warner, John I'M AWARE. THEN GOING BEYOND DOCUMENTS, DID THE SERE ORGANIZATION OR JPRA PROVIDE INDIVIDUALS TO GO AND PERFORM TRAINING?
02:52:48 Baumgartner, Daniel SENATOR, I BELIEVE THEY SENT A TEAM TO DO BRIEFINGS, INSTRUCTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY CONDUCTED TRAINING.
02:52:57 Warner, John WELL, INSTRUCTION IS PRETTY CLOSE TO TRAINING. I THEY THEY'RE INTERCHANGEABLE WORDS.
02:53:04 Baumgartner, Daniel COMES WITH REALLY GOOD EXPRESSION. I REALLY WANT TO USE IT. BUT I WON'T. INSTRUCTION IMPLIES IN PARTS ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE WHEREAS TRAINING IN THE OUR CONTEXT IMPLIES SKILL SETS.
02:53:15 Warner, John OKAY. THEN WHAT WAS DONE? JUST INSTRUCTION AND NOT SKILL SET?
02:53:22 Baumgartner, Daniel MY UNDERSTANDING -- I DIDN'T ATTEND THE TRAINING. BUT THE ONE -- SOME OF THE E-MAIL STUFF THAT I'VE SEEN WHICH IS ALL ON A CLASSIFIED NET, WAS BASIC INSTRUCTION AND EXPLOITATION, INTERROGATIONS, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE PROVIDED DIA AND CITF.
02:53:43 Warner, John ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT SHARING AN ISSUE THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION SOUGHT HIGHER AUTHORITY TO APPROVE? FOR INSTANCE, DID IT GO UP TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE? IT DIDN'T GO TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, BUT IT WENT TO THE FLAG LEVEL AND JOINT FORCES COMMAND.
02:53:59 Warner, John WAIT A MINUTE. I SPENT FIVE YEARS IN THE BUILDING. I NEVER KNOW WHAT A FLAG LEVEL IS. THERE ARE FLAGS ALL OVER. IT WENT FROM WHERE TO WHERE?
02:54:08 Baumgartner, Daniel I WENT FROM JPRA HEADQUARTERS TO THE JOINT FORCES COMMAND, J 3, AND I THINK INTO THE CHIEF OF
02:54:13 Warner, John CHIEF OF STAFF OF?
02:54:17 Baumgartner, Daniel JOINT FORCES COMMAND.
02:54:18 Warner, John ALL RIGHT. NOW, I'M REFERRING TO A DOCUMENT 26 JULY '02, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEMORANDUM FOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL. IT SAYS PARAGRAPH ONE, UNCLASSIFIED, THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS TO ANSWER FOLLOW- ON QUESTIONS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING BETWEEN JPRA AND OSDGC ON 25 JULY, '02. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT MEETING?
02:54:49 Baumgartner, Daniel I'M TALKING ABOUT TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. AS MR. SHIFFRIN SAID, I'VE NEVER MET MR. SHIFFRIN BEFORE TODAY. BUT WE DID HAVE A FEW CONVERSATIONS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT INFORMATION THEY WANTED SO WE COULD SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST.
02:55:05 Warner, John SO THE MEETING CONSISTED OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION?
02:55:07 Baumgartner, Daniel TWO OR THREE, SIR.
02:55:09 Warner, John TWO OR THREE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.
02:55:11 Baumgartner, Daniel YES, SIR.
02:55:12 Warner, John BUT THERE WAS NO GATHERING IN A ROOM OR EXCHANGING --
02:55:15 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SIR, NOT THAT I RECALL.
02:55:16 Warner, John THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I KNOW YOU'RE ANXIOUS TO GET THE NEXT PENL.
02:55:21 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. SENATOR LIEBERMAN.
02:55:24 Lieberman, Joseph THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL BE REAL LEAF. DR. OGRISSEG, I WANTED TO ASK YOU WHETHER THE TRAINING WE'RE GIVING OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL TO RESIST INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES ALTERS OR HAS ALTERED OVERTIME WITH THE ENEMY OR WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERROGATION? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE TRAINING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE FACING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THAN WE WERE, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE WERE FACING THE SOVIET UNION OR THE VEET CONGRESS?
02:55:55 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR. THE TRAINING HAS CHANGED. WE OBVIOUSLY WANT THE TRAINING TO BE RELEVANT. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'VE HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COVERING THE SPECTRUM OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF WAYS THAT SOMEONE COULD BE DETAINED EITHER BY TERRORIST ELEMENTS, FACTIONS THAT WE'RE AT WAR WITH OR EVEN WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS THAT WE'RE NOT AT WAR WITH.
02:56:21 Lieberman, Joseph DOES THE GOAL OF THE INTERROGATORS AS WE ASSUME -- DOES THE GOAL THAT WE ASSUME OUR ENEMY INTERROGATORS WILL HAVE ALTER THE METHODS AND THE MEANS OF RESPONDING? IN OTHER WORDS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN A LOT OF CASES IN PREVIOUS CONFLICTS, THE AIM -- WE UNFORTUNATELY KNOW ABOUT SENATOR McCAIN'S EXPERIENCE. THE PRIMARY AIM OF THE TORTURE HE ENDURED WAS TO COMPEL HIM TO SIGN A CONFESSION OF SOME KIND FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING INFORMATION AS WAS THE CASE THAT THE PENTAGON WAS SEEKING HERE. UNFORTUNATE THERE THERE'S SOME REASON TO BELIEVE WITH THE CURRENT ENRICHMENT ME THEIR LIKELY COURSE IS TO PUT THEM CAPTIVE ON TELEVISION AND KILL THEM. SO DOES THE GOAL ALTER THE TRAINING, THE GOAL OF THE INTERROGATORS?
02:57:18 Ogrisseg, Jerald IT DUSTAL. THE WAY THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROCESSED AND DETAINED BEFORE IN SOME INSTANCES WAS FOCUSED ON INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE WAY THAT SOMEONE CAN BE EXPLOITED BY AN ENEMY. THE SITUATION THAT YOU DESCRIBED WITH A TERRORIST NETWORK MAKING -- THEIR GOAL MAY BE TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THAT INSTANCE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SERVE. SO YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT, AND YOU CANNOT WITHIN THE TRAINING NECESSARILY DETERMINE WHICH GOALS -- WHICH ACTIONS THAT THE STUDENTS ARE GOING TO TAKE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THEMSELVES.
02:57:56 Lieberman, Joseph THE ENEMY WE'RE FACING NOW, THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS HAVE A CULTURAL BACKGROUND BUT ALSO A THEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM ABOUT THEM. AND -- THE QUESTION IS THIS, HAS COLONEL BAUMGARTNER SAID, WHEN WAS YOU WERE ASKED FOR THIS INFORMATION ABOUT SERE TECHNIQUES BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE IN THE PENTAGON, IT WAS NATURAL TO ASSUME THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR IT TO EMPLOY AGAINST DETAINEES THAT WE HAD IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM. WAS THERE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU CONVEYED THAT WAS BASED ON THE UNIQUE CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE ISLAMIST TERRORISTS?
02:58:44 Ogrisseg, Jerald ARE YOU ASKING ME THAT QUESTION --
02:58:46 Lieberman, Joseph EITHER ONE OF YOU THAT CARES TO ANSWER.
02:58:48 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SIR, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
02:58:51 Lieberman, Joseph LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. ONE FORM OF HARSH INTERROGATION, HANDLING OF DETAINEES YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED ABOUT IS THE USE OF DOGS. IN SOME OF THE MATERIAL I'VE READ, FROM SOMEWHERE COMES THE SUGGESTION THAT MUSLIMS OR ARABS HAVE SOME SPECIAL PHOBIA OR FEAR OF DOGS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S ANY PREMISE FOR THAT. BUT I TAKE IT THAT -- DID YOU AT ANY POINT DEAL WITH THAT IN THE SUBMISSION YOU MADE TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE?
02:59:21 Baumgartner, Daniel NO, SENATOR. WE HAD NO -- NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
02:59:25 Lieberman, Joseph MR. SHIFFRIN, DID THAT EVER COME UP IN ANY OF YOUR SEARCH -- LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. IN TRYING TO FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN IMPROVING THE INTERROGATION OF THE DETAINEES IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM, DID YOU EVER REACH OUT FOR TACTICS OR INFORMATION THAT WERE BASED ON UNIQUE CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OR PHOBIAS OR FEARS OF THE KINDS OF PEOPLE WE WERE LIKELY TO BE DETAINING ON THE WAR ON ISLAMIST
03:00:01 Shiffrin, Richard NO, SIR. MY REQUEST WAS SEND ME EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. WHATEVER YOU HAVE IN EXISTENCE IN YOUR LIBRARY, PLEASE SEND TO ME. I WAS NEVER SPECIFIC ON TECHNIQUES, ON THE NATURE OF THE INTERROGATORS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
03:00:15 Lieberman, Joseph DO YOU REMEMBER IN ANY OF THE MATERIAL THAT CAME BY YOU WHETHER ANY OF IT DEALT WITH WHAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT WERE UNIQUE PHOBIAS OR VULNERABILITIES OF PEOPLE WE WOULD BE DETAINING ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM?
03:00:30 Shiffrin, Richard NO. EVERYTHING I GOT WAS HISTORICAL FROM THE 1950s BASICALLY.
03:00:35 Levin, Carl OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ENEMY.
03:00:38 Shiffrin, Richard CORRECT.
03:00:39 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST ON THAT QUESTION, I THINK MR. SHIFFRIN EARLIER TODAY IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN, YOU SAID ONE OF THE PURPOSES IN SEEKING INFORMATION FROM JPRA WAS LIKELY TO, QUOTE, REVERSE ENGINEER CLOSED QUOTE, SERE TECHNIQUES. DID YOU SAY THAT TODAY?
03:01:00 Shiffrin, Richard I DID.
03:01:01 Levin, Carl YOU SAID TWO MINUTES AGO YOU DIDN'T ASK ABOUT TECHNIQUES.
03:01:05 Shiffrin, Richard ANY SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES. I NEVER INQUIRED OF ANY SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES. THE EFFICACY, THE WAS COME OR ANYTHING ELSE. MY --
03:01:16 Levin, Carl SECONDS AGO I JUST ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION, IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR LIEBERMAN, YOU SAID ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF TEEKING INFORMATION FROM JPRA WAS LIKELY TO, QUOTE, REVERSE ENGINEER SERE TECHNIQUES. YOU SAID YES, YOU DID SAY THAT.
03:01:33 Shiffrin, Richard I SAID IT TO SENATOR LEEBLER MAN. I SAID THAT MY MAYOR MAYOR PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO FIND ALL THE INFORMATION THEY HAD -- THERE MIGHT BE SOME POSSIBILITY OF REVERSE ENGINEERING IN EFFECTIVE SERE TECHNIQUE, JUST
03:01:51 Levin, Carl I SEE. YOU BELIEVE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE PURPOSES.
03:02:00 Shiffrin, Richard YES.
03:02:04 Levin, Carl JUST TO DR. OGRISSEG, ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. IN AN ARTICLE OR A BOOK, I'M NOT SURE, THAT YOU WROTE AS PART OF THE BOOK CALLED "CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CAPTIVITY, TRAINING, COPING, AND REINTEGRATION OF MILITARY LIFE," YOU SAID THAT THE USE OF PHYSICAL TORTURE HAS HISTORICALLY YIELD LD POOR INFORMATION AND PARADOXICALLY SERVES TO ENHANCE RESISTANCE.
03:02:33 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
03:02:34 Levin, Carl FURTHERMORE THE PRACTICE SERVES TO DECREASE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE OFFENDING ORGANIZATION OR COUNTRY, PHYSICAL TORTURE IN MOST INSTANCES HAS PRODUCED FALSE N CONFESSIONS OR INACCURATE OR RELIABLE INFORMATION.
03:02:48 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, SIR.
03:02:50 Levin, Carl IS THAT YOUR BELIEF?
03:02:51 Ogrisseg, Jerald YES, IT IS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
03:02:53 Levin, Carl ON THE PAGE THAT CAME IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, ON PAGE 99, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT SLEEP DEPRIVATION. SLEEP DAEP INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN USED BY CAPTORS TO ENHANCE DEPENDENCY AND MALLABILITY OF BEHAVIOR. LACK OF SLEEP MAY RESULT IN ANXIETY, IRRITABILITY, BLURD VISION, MEMORY PROBLEMS, CONFUSION, SLURRED SPEECH, HALLUCINATIONS, PARP KNOW YEAH, DISORIENTATION AND ULTIMATELY DEATH. HOWEVER, SLEEP DEPRIVATION EVEN FOR ONE NIGHT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO AFFECT THE AREAS OF THE BRAIN USED FOR LANGUAGE, ATTENTION, WORKING MEMORY, FUNCTION. SUGGESTING THAT EVEN MINOR DISRUPTIONS IN SLEEP CAN DEGRADE THE CAPTIVE'S ABILITY TO COPE EFFECTIVELY WITH CHALLENGES FACED IN CAPTIVITY. IS THAT STILL YOUR OPINION?
03:03:37 Ogrisseg, Jerald MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WROTE THAT SECTION. THERE WERE MULTIPLE AUTHORS ON THAT CHAPTER. AND IF I MAY COMMENT BACK TO THE QUESTION, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DEFINE WHAT 18 HOURS OR 17 HOURS OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION ARE, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING MORE, GETTING UP AT 5:00 A.M. AND GOING TO BED AT 10:00 OR 11:00 AT NIGHT, I THINK MOST PEOPLE DO THAT KIND OF EVERY DAY. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING I NEED MORE CONTEXT.
03:04:09 Levin, Carl SURE. THAT'S OKAY. YOU SAID LACK OF SLEEP FOR PROLONGED PERIODS MAY RESULT. SO YOU STAY WITH THAT STATEMENT, IF IT'S PROLONGED PERIODS OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION.
03:04:20 Ogrisseg, Jerald I DON'T BELIEVE I WROTE THAT SECTION OF THAT CHAPTER, BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
03:04:25 Levin, Carl WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH SERE TRAINING OR WITNESSED SERE TRAINING, SLEEP DEPRIVATION YOU TALKED ABOUT THERE THAT OUR PEOPLE WERE TRAINED TO BE INOCULATED AGAINST WERE SHORTER PERIODS THAN THAT, YOU SAID FOUR HOURS PERHAPS?
03:04:41 Ogrisseg, Jerald MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ACTUALLY INOCULATE THEM TO THAT.
03:04:45 Levin, Carl TO SLEEP DEPRIVATION.
03:04:46 Ogrisseg, Jerald WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO -- I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU COULD INOCULATE THEM TO SLEEP DEPRIVATION. HOWEVER, WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S A CONDITION THAT THEY FACE, AND WE TRY TO SIMULATE THAT DURING THE TRAINING.
03:05:03 Levin, Carl HOW DO YOU SIMULATE IT?
03:05:06 Ogrisseg, Jerald WELL, WE SIMULATE THAT BY KEEPING THEM UP. CERTAINLY THEY ARE DOING SOME OF THE THINGS --
03:05:11 Levin, Carl KEEPING THEM UP FOR HOW LONG?
03:05:12 Ogrisseg, Jerald SOMETIMES OVERNIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME.
03:05:17 Levin, Carl HOW MANY HOURS ABOUT?
03:05:19 Ogrisseg, Jerald IT VARIES. BUT IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT 4 TO 10 HOURS OR SO.
03:05:26 Levin, Carl OKAY.
03:05:27 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. WE THANK THIS PANEL VERY MUCH. YOU'RE EXCUSED.
03:06:40 Levin, Carl WE THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR PRESENCE, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM EACH OF YOU. AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS START I THINK WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER FIRST FOLLOWED BY REAR ADMIRAL DALTON AND THEN MR. MORA. IF YOU WOULD PROCEED, COLONEL BEAVER, WE WOULD THANK YOU.
03:07:03 Beaver, Diane MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I APPEAR TODAY VOLUNTARILY IN MY PRIVATE CAPACITY ALTHOUGH I'M CURRENTLY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, I DO NOT SPEAK TODAY ON ITS BEHALF. I'M HERE TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY AND COMPLETELY REGARDING MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERROGATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, FROM JUNE 2002 TO JUNE 2003. AS A STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE FOR THE DETENTION FACILITY AT GUANTANAMO BAY, I WROTE A LEGAL OPINION IN OCTOBER 2002. IN IT I CONCLUDED THAT CERTAIN AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, IF APPROPRIATELY REVIEWED, CONTROLLED AND MONITORED, WERE LAWFUL. SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PUBLICLY RELEASE MID OPINION IN JUNE 2004 IT HAS RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE ATTENTION AND SCRUTINY. I HAVE BEEN VILIFIED BY SOME BECAUSE OF IT AND DISCOUNTED AND FORGOTTEN BY MANY OTHERS. REGARDLESS I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF MY LEGAL OPINION BASED ON MY OWN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS. IT REPRESENTS THE BEST WORK I COULD DO UNDER THE CON STRAPTS AN CIRCUMSTANCES I FACED AT THE TIME. NO ONE IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED ME TO WRITE THIS OPINION OR TO MY KNOWLEDGE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO DO SO. I TRIED TO KOULT EXPERTS AND SUPERIORS ON THE CONTENT OF THE OPINION PRIOR TO ISSUING IT, BUT RECEIVED NO FEEDBACK. I DO NOT SAY THAT'S A SHIFT BLAME. THE BLAME FOR ANY ERROR IN THAT OPINION IS MINE AND MINE ALONE. I CANNOT, HOWEVER, ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO MY LEGAL OPINION AFTER I PROPERLY SUBMITTED IT TO MY CHAIN OF COMMAND. I FULLY EXPECTED IT WOULD BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED BY LEGAL AND POLICY EXPERTS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS BEFORE A DECISION WAS REACHED. I DID NOT EXPECT THAT MY OPINION AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S CORPS WOULD BECOME THE FINAL WORD WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. FOR ME SUCH A RESULT WAS SIMPLY NOT FORESEEABLE. PERHAPS I WAS SOMEWHAT MY RECEIVE. I DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE THE ONLY LAWYER ISSUING AN OPINION ON THIS MONUMENTALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. IN HINDSIGHT I CANNOT HELP TO CONCLUDE THAT OTHERS CHOSE NOT TO WRITE ON THIS ISSUE TO AVOID BEING LINKED TO IT. THAT WAS NOT AN ON SHUN FOR ME. MY COMMANDER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETENTION AND INTERROGATION OPERATIONS FOR THE MOST DANGEROUS GROUP OF TERRORISTS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. THE SPECTER OF ANOTHER CATASTROPHIC ATTACK ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOOMED LARGE IN OUR THOUGHTS AND HAUNTED OUR DREAMS. WE KNEW NAH ACCURATE, ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ANOTHER SUCH ATTACK. WE DID OUR JOBS KNOWING THAT IF WE FAILED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD PAY A PRICE. I HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN ASKED WHETHER I WAS PRESSURED TO WRITE MY OCTOBER 2002 LEGAL OPINION. I FELT A GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE AS DID ALL OF US AT THE FACILITY. I FELT THE PRESSURE OF KNOWING THAT THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES MIGHT BE LOST IF WE GOT IT WRONG. I KNEW THAT MANY HONEST, DECENT AMERICANS WOULD CONDEMN OUR ACTIONS IF WE DID NOT BALANCE OUR EFFORTS TO PROTECT THEM WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. I BELIEVED AT THE TIME AND STILL DO THAT SUCH A BALANCE COULD BE REACHED IF THE INTERROGATIONS WERE STRICTLY REVIEWED, CONTROLLED AND MONITORED. MY LEGAL OPINION WAS NOT A BLANK CHECK, AUTHORIZING UNLIMITED INTERROGATIONS. THROUGHOUT THE OPINION I 'EM PA SIZE THE NEED FOR MEDICAL, PSYCHIATRIC AND LEGAL REVIEWS TO BE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THESE INTERROGATION PLANS. MY JUDGE ADVOCATES AND I WERE INTENT ON MONITORING THE INTERROGATIONS AND WOULD STOP ANY EXCESSIVE OR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR IF WE SAW IT. WHAT I ACCOMPLISHED IN MY LEGAL OPINION HAS LARGELY GONE UNNOTICED. XHI COMMAND DID NOT CONDUCT INTERROGATIONS INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT THE NOTICE OR APPROVAL OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES. INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATEORS WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVISE TECHNIQUES WITHOUT COMMAND APPROVAL OR CONTROL. IN SHORT, THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES DISCUSSED IN MY LEGAL OPINION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN AN ABUSIVE OR UNLAWFUL MANNER IF THE APPROVAL AND CONTROL PROCEDURES I OUTLINED WERE FOLLOWED. IN THIS WAY, WHAT HAPPENED AT GUANTANAMO BAY STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE ANARCHY THAT OCCURRED AT ABU GHRAIB. I CLOSE THIS STATEMENT AS I BEGAN IT, BY ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY. I REACHED MY LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AFTERCAREFUL ANALYSIS AT ALL TIMES ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. I DISCUSSED MY IDEAS OPENLY WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND ENCOURAGED FULL DEBATE. SOME OF MY CRITICS CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. HAD THEY THEY CONCERNS AND RESERVATIONS WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FAIR CONSIDERATION. THAT MY COLLEAGUES AND I OPENLY DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISEDING. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INCLUDING LEGAL EXPERTS WERE HAVING SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS AT HOMES, SCHOOLS AND WORKPLACES ACROSS THE NATION. I'M A PROUD PROFESSIONAL. I FEEL KEENLY ANY FAILURE ON MY PART TO BE PRECISE AND ACCURATE IN THE ADVICE I RENDER. I FREELY ACCEPT SINCERE DECENT AND CRITICISM. AT A TIME OF GREAT STRESS AND DANGER I TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING IN MY LAWFUL POWER TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
03:12:03 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, COLONEL BEAVER. ADMIRAL DALTON.
03:12:05 Dalton, Jane THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE MATTER OF DETAINEE INTERROGATION POLICY. FROM JUNE 2000 UNTIL JUNE 2003 IT WAS MY PRIVILEGE TO SERVE AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. DURING THAT TIME I DREW UPON MY YEARS OF SERVICE AS A CAREER MILITARY LAWYER, STUDYING AND APPLYING THE LAWS OF WAR TO ADVISE THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS ON LEGAL ISSUES POSED BY THE EXTRAORDINARY SECURITY CHALLENGES CONFRONTING OUR NATION FOLLOWING THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001. THOSE CHALLENGES CALLED ON LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT AS NEVER BEFORE TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO ENABLE OUR NATION'S LEADERS TO AGGRESSIVELY MEET THE UNPRECEDENTED THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING OUR ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW AND THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS. THAT WE UNDERTOOK THIS TASK AT A TIME OF WAR AND AMIDST A CONTINUOUS STREAM OF INTELLIGENCE POINTING TO A SUBSTANTIAL AND RESILL YANT TERRORIST THREAT MADE OUR WORK AS LAWYERS ALL THE MORE DIFFICULT. THROUGH IT ALL, I DID MY BEST TO PROVIDE CLEAR, UNVARNISHED LEGAL ADVICE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR OF HOW MY ADVICE WOULD BE RECEIVED. WORKING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF A MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE STATUTORY ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, I ALSO TOOK THOSE ACTIONS I DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO FOLLOW UP ON ISSUES THAT AROSE CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES. I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERNIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND I APPRECIATE THE SENSITIVITY OF THE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW. I HAVE FAITH THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL FULFILL ITS OVERSIGHT ROLE WITH WISDOM, PERSPECTIVE AND FAIRNESS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO TODAY'S HEARING. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.
03:14:00 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, ADMIRAL. MR. MORA.
03:14:05 Mora, Alberto CHAIRMAN LEVIN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, IT IS A PRIVILEGE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. THESE HEARINGS ARE CRITICAL TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR NATION'S --
03:14:16 Levin, Carl CAN YOU PUT THE MIKE MORE DIRECTLY IN FRONT?
03:14:18 Mora, Alberto YES, SIR.
03:14:19 Levin, Carl THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
03:14:20 Mora, Alberto THESE HEARINGS ARE CRITICAL TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING BOTH OF OUR NATION'S INTERROGATION PRACTICES AND OF EVEN GREATER IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR NATION IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY CRUELTY IN THE INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES. PERMIT ME FIRST, HOWEVER, TO THANK THE MEMBERS AND STAFF FOR THEIR MANY COURTESIES TO ME DURING MY TENURE AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. THROUGHOUT MY TIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE I WITNESSED THE COMMIT COMMITTEE LIVE UP TO ITS REPUTATION FOR CIVILITY, DILIGENCE AND PROFESSIONALISM AND NONPARTISANSHIP AS IT ATTENDED TO THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS OF OUR NATION'S DEFENSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR NATION'S POLICY DECISION TO USE SO-CALLED HARSH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES DURING THE WAR ON TERROR WAS A MISTAKE OF MASSIVE PROPORTIONS. IT DAMAGED AND CONTINUES TO DAMAGE OUR NATION. THIS POLICY WHICH MAY APTLY BE LABELED A POLICY OF CRUELTY VIOLATED OUR FAMILY VALUES, CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND FABRIC OF OUR LAWS, OVER ARCHING INTERESTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY. THE NET EFFECT OF THIS POLICY OF CRUELTY HAS BEEN TO WEAKEN OUR DEFENSES, NOT STRENGTHENING THEM. BEFORE EXAMINING THE DAMAGE IT MAY BE USEFUL TO DRAW LEGAL DISTINCTIONS. THE CHOICE OF THE ADJECTIVES "HARSH" OR "ENHANCED" IS UF MYSTIC AND MISLEADING. THE CORRECT ADJECTIVE IS CRUEL. MANY OF THE TECHNIQUES AUTHORIZED AT GUANTANAMO CONSTITUTE INHUMANE TREAT THAT OULD DEPENDING ON THEIR APPLICATION EASILY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF TORTURE. MANY AMERICANS ARE UNAWARE THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRUELTY AND TORTURE. THIS IS TENDED TO OBSCURE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE INTERROGATION DEBATE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PUBLIC MAY BE LARGELY UNAWARE THE GOVERNMENT COULD EVASIVELY IF TRUTHFULLY CLAIM AND DID CLAIM THAT IT WAS NOT TORTUREING EVEN AS IT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY APPLYING CRUELTY. AMERICANS SHOULD KNOW THERE IS LITTLE OR NO MORAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRUELTY AND TORTURE, FOR CRUELTY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS TORTURE IN ESTABLISH SAVAGING HUMAN FLESH AND SPIRIT. OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE NOT ON JUST BANNING TORTURE BUT ON BANNING CRUELTY. EXCEPT IN EGG GREEJ YOUS CASES IT IS DIFFICULT FOR OUTSIDERS TO GAUGE THE PRECISE LEGAL CATEGORY OF ABUSE INFLICTED ON ANY DETAINEE BECAUSE IT HINGES ON SPECIFIC FACTS, INCLUDING THE TECHNIQUES USED AND THE MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT. IN GENERAL, HOWEVER, IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT INTERROGATION CONSTITUTING CRUEL TREATMENT WAS CONDUCTED AND CERTAINLY THE ADMISSION THAT WATERBOARDING, A CLASSIC AND REVIALED METHOD OF TORTURE WAS APPLIED TO SOME DETAINEES CREATES THE PRESUMPTION THAT THOSE DETAINEES WERE TORTURED. UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED ON A PRINCIPLE THAT EVERY PERSON, NOT JUST A CITIZEN, POSSESSIONS CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT NO GOVERNMENT MAY VIT LATE. AMONG THESE RIGHTS IS UNQUESTIONABLY THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT AS EVIDENCED BY THE 8th AMENDMENT. IF WE CAN APPLY THE POLICY OF CRUELTY TO DETAINEES, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OUR FOUNDERS WERE WRONG ABOUT THE SCOPE OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. FOR THIS REASON CRUEL INTERROGATIONS NECESSARILY CORRUPT OUR FOUNDING VALUES AND CORRODE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE FABRIC OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. BECAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM, THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF MANY COUNTRIES AND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM ARE ALL LARGELY DESIGNED TO PROTECT HUMAN DIGNITY, THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADOPT CRUELTY HAS HAD A DEVASTATING FOREIGN POLICY CONSEQUENCE. THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF DETAINEE SS A CRIMINAL ACT FOR MOST AND PERHAPS ALL OF OUR TRADITIONAL ALLIES, AS THESE NATIONS CAME TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUE DIMENSIONS OF OUR POLICY, POLITICAL FISHERS BETWEEN US AND THEM BEGAN TO EMERGE BECAUSE NONE OF THEM WOULD FOLLOW OUR LEAD INTO THE SWAMP OF LEGALIZED ABUSE. THESE FIS SURES DEEP END. ON THE NORM BERG PRECEDENCE AND THE INCIDENCE OF PRISONER ABUSE WORLDWIDE. RESPECT AND POLITICAL SUPPORT ABROAD FOR THE UNITED STATES DECREASED SHARPLY AND RAPIDLY. THESE ADVERSE FOREIGN POLICY CONSEQUENCES INEVITABLY CAME TO DAMAGE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVELY ON THE WAR OF TERROR. OUR ABILITY TO SUSTAIN THE BROAD ALLIANCE TO FIGHT THE WAR WAS COMPROMISED. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION INCLUDING MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ARENAS DIMINISHED AS FOREIGN OFFICIALS BECAME CONCERNED THAT ASSISTS THE U.S. COULD CONSTITUTE AIDING AND ABETTING CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. AS THE DIFFICULTITION OF PRIME MINISTERS DEMONSTRATED, ALL OF THESE FACTORS CONTRIBUTEED TO THE DIFFICULTIES OUR NATION HAS EXPERIENCED IN FORGING THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE COALITION TO FIGHT THE WAR. THE DAMAGE TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ALSO OCCURRED DOWN AT THE TACTICAL OR OPERATIONAL LEVEL. I'LL CITE FOUR EXAMPLES I HEARD ABOUT DURING MY TENURE. FIRST SOME U.S. OFFICERS MAINTAINED THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND IDENTIFIABLE CAUSES OF U.S. COMBAT DEATHS IN IRAQ AS JUDGED BY THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN RECRUITING INSURGENT FIGHTERS ARE THE SYMBOLS OF ABU GHRAIB AND GUANTANAMO. THERE ARE OTHERS CONVINCE HAD THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF ABU GHRAIB WAS THE ABUSE AND TREATMENT OF DETAINEES ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN 2002. SECOND, SOME ALLIED NATIONS REPORTEDLY HESITATED TO PARTICIPATE IN COMBAT OPERATIONS IF THERE WAS THE POSSIBILITY THAT CAPTURED INDIVIDUALS COULD BE ABUSED BY U.S. FORCES. THIRD, SOME ALLIED NATIONS HAVE REFUSED TRAIN WITH US IN THE HANDLING OPERATIONS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT U.S. DETAINEE POLICIES. AND FOURTH, SENIOR NATO OFFICERS IN AFGHANISTAN ARE REPORT TO HAVE LEFT THE ROOM WHEN ISSUES OF DETAINEE TREATMENT WERE RACED BY U.S. OFFICIALS OUT OF FEAR THEY COULD BECOME COMPLICIT IN ANY ABUSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, FIGHTING FOR THEIR VALUES AGAINST SELECTING THOSE WEAPONS WHOSE VERY USE WOULD DESTROY THOSE VALUES. IN THIS WAR ON TERROR, THE UNITED STATES IS FIGHTING FOR OUR VALUES AND CRUELTY IS SUCH A WEAPON. THANK YOU.
03:21:10 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. MORA. COLONEL BEAVER, LET ME START WITH YOU. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2002 BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS AND INTERROGATORS FROM GUANTANAMO ATTENDED TRAINING AT FT. BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA. ON SEPTEMBER 25th, 2002, LESS THAN A WEEK AFTER THEY GOT BACK FROM TRAINING, JIM HAYNES, DAVID ADDING TON, JOHN RIZ SEW AND MICHAEL CHERTOFF TRAVELED TO KWAN TAN MOW WHERE YOU WERE THE SENIOR JAG OFFICER. A WEEK LATER ON OCTOBER 2nd, JONATHAN FREDMAN, THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE CIA'S COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER CAME TO GET MO AND ATTENDED A MEETING WHERE SERE TECHNIQUES WERE DISCUSSED. THAT'S OCTOBER 2nd. TAB SEVEN IN YOUR BOOK ARE THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING. ON PAGE THREE OF THE MINUTES, MR. FREDMAN IS QUOTED AS SAYING THE ANTI TORTURE STATUTES ARE VAGUELY WRITTEN AND THAT, QUOTE, IT IS BASICALLY SUBJECT TO PERCEPTION. IF THE DETAINEE DIES, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES YOU SAID, WE'LL NEED DOCUMENT TAPGS TO PROTECT US. IF THE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES WERE LEGAL, WHY WOULD YOU NEED PROTECTION?
03:22:45 Beaver, Diane THIS E-MAIL WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME, SO I CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR ITS ACCURACY EXCEPT OF SOMEBODY FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE WROTE IT. BUT SEPARATE FROM THAT, REGARDING JONATHAN FREDMAN PARTICIPATING IN A MEETING THAT I HELD, I HAD HELD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS TO DISCUSS INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES ONCE THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL WANTED TO DO MORE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES. I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE BEST O INTEREST OF ALL CONCERNED THAT EVERYONE PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS INCLUDING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE EVERYBODY WAS COMININ FRFR. CITF W W INVITITEDND DIDID PARTICIPATATE. I N'T REMEMEMBER WHAT MR. EDMAN SAID, N NOR D DO IEMEMBEBER WHWHAT I SAID SPECICICALLY. CERTAINLY WHEN -- IN TERMS OF REQUESTING ADDIOIONAL TECHNIQUES, I CAN ONLY THINK THAT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THESE THNHNIQUESES WERE NOT CONTAINED IN THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL AND WER NOT CONTAINED IN AN APPROVALED MANUAL OF SOME SORT THAT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE SERVICES. SO IN TERMS OF OBTAINING COMMAND APPROVAL, I BELIEVE I WAS REFERRING TO JUST THAT, THAT THESE TECHNIQUES, WHATEVER WAS GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED BY THE MI COMMUNITY WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALREADY TECHNIQUES THAT WERE TRAINED AND TAUGHT AT FORT WITH A CHEWING GA AND CONTAINED IN THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL.
03:24:17 Levin, Carl WHAT WAS THE REFERENCE TO PROTECTION? YOU SAID IF THE -- WHY WOULD YOU NEED -- FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU SAY WE NEED DOCUMENTATION TO PROTECT US? ARE YOU REFERRING TO LEGAL OPINION?
03:24:30 Beaver, Diane AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MY E HAIL. I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY I SAID THAT.
03:24:35 Levin, Carl WHAT ABOUT MR. FRED MAN'S STATEMENT, DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING IF THE DETAINEE DIES, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG?
03:24:40 Beaver, Diane I DO NOT RECALL -- IT'S SIX YEARS AGO. I HONESTLY CANNOT RECALL WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY SAID. WHAT I THOUGHT WAS VALUABLE IN TERMS OF HIS CONTRIBUTION WAS BRINGING ANOTHER VIEW SO THAT OTHERS BE HIDES MYSELF, IN TERMS OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THAT ROOM, COULD LISTEN TO ANOTHER PERSON ESSENTIALLY DISCUSS THE, QUOTE, TORTURE CONVENTION AND SO FORTH, AND YOU COULD HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. SO I I RECALL THAT WE DID HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION AND THAT IT WAS COLLEGIAL AND EVERYONE PARTICIPATED. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I RECALL FROM THAT MEETING.
03:25:14 Levin, Carl ON PAGE FOUR OF THOSE MINUTES, YOU ARE QUOTED AS ASKING, DOES SERE EMPLOY THE WET TOWEL TECHNIQUE? DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSING THE SERE TECHNIQUES?
03:25:26 Beaver, Diane I REMEMBER THE J 2 AT THE TIME, LIEU TERNL COLONEL JERRY FIRE BROUGHT UP THE WET TOWEL TECHNIQUE. I HAD NEVER SEEN WATERBOARDING. I STILL HAVEN'T AS OF TODAY. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY KIND OF WET TOWEL TECHNIQUE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE -- WELL, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY PERSONNEL AND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL WANTED TO REQUEST. AND I BELIEVE I WAS ASKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I HAD NOT EVER SEEN THAT MYSELF.
03:25:57 Levin, Carl YOU REFERENCE TO DOES SERE EMPLOY THE WET TOWEL TECHNIQUE? IS THAT ACCURATE?
03:26:02 Beaver, Diane I CAN SAY I PROBABLY DID. I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY. I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT THE INTERROGATORS HAD RAISED AS SOMETHING THAT THEY MIGHT WISH TO EMPLOY.
03:26:11 Levin, Carl DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSION ABOUT SERE TECHNIQUES BEING USED?
03:26:19 Beaver, Diane WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT SERE BEING DISCUSSED WAS FACT THAT -- THAT IF SOMETHING WAS -- IF SOMETHING WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED BY A HIGHER COMMAND, WHICH I THOUGHT IN THIS CASE WOULD BE GENERAL HILL, I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA THAT IT WOULD GO HIGHER THAN GENERAL HILL, YOU'D THEN HAVE TO HAVE AN S.O.P., STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE TRAINED, YOU HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE THINGS TO ENSURE THAT THE TECHNIQUES WERE USED PROPERLY AND THEY WOULD NOT GO BEYOND WHAT WAS LAWFUL. BECAUSE SEAR ALREADY HAD S.O.P.s ON MANY OF THESE TYPES OF TECHNIQUES, I KNOW I -- I CERTAINLY THOUGHT IF SOMETHING GOT APPROVED, AGAIN, A TECHNIQUE THAT SEAR USED, THAT THAT COULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT FOR AN S.O.P. SO IT MADE SENSE IF SOMEBODY WERE ALREADY DOING IT IS ALL I'M SAYING. WE COULD NOT EMPLOY THESE TECHNIQUES WITHOUT THE PROPER TRAINING AND CONTROLS.
03:27:13 Levin, Carl WERE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE SEAR PROGRAM WAS TO BE USED DEFENSIVELY AND NOT OFFENSIVELY AGAINST DETAINEES? WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
03:27:20 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:27:22 Levin, Carl SO WHY WOULD YOU BE TALKING ABOUT SEAR TECHNIQUES IN TERMS OF INTERROGATION SINCE ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT --
03:27:29 Beaver, Diane RIGHT.
03:27:31 Levin, Carl INTERROGATION PURPOSES?
03:27:33 Beaver, Diane FOR MY INTELLIGENCE COLLEAGUES WHO WERE LOOKING TO DO BASICALLY -- OR WHO SAID INCLUDING SEN -- GENERAL DUNLEAVY WHO WAS INSISTENT THAT THE DETAINEES WERE SHOWING SIGNS OF BEING COUNTER RESISTANCE TRAINED, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL TECHNIQUES. AND BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD DETERMINED THAT THE JUNIEVE CONVENTIONS DID NOT APPLY, THAT THEY WERE NOT TO BE TREATED AS P.O.W.s, THEN IN THE WORLD OF, I GUESS, WHAT IS MY OWN WORDS OR MAKES SENSE TO ME, IF -- IF YOU KNOW THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT'S WITHIN THE MILITARY COMMUNITY THAT MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE LEGAL, IT WASN'T DETERMINED YET, BUT MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE LEGAL, THEN THEY WOULD LOOK TO THAT BOSS THEY ALREADY UNDERSTOOD THAT -- THAT THINGS THAT WERE ILLEGAL, OF COURSE, LIKE TORTURE WAS ILLEGAL. OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T GOING TO ASK FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND SO YOU LOOK TO SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE THAT YOU CAN EITHER CUT AND PASTE FROM. YOU KNOW, LEARN SOMETHING FROM. AS OPPOSED TO CREATING SOMETHING NEW THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE. SO I HAVE TO ASSUME BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE KNOW OF SEAR OR HAVE SOME SOCSOME EVEN -- SOME EVEN AT GITMO HAD BEEN TRAINED THAT THAT WAS A NATURAL SORT OF JUMP TO MAYBE SOME OF THE SEAR TECHNIQUES. NOT ALL OF THEM. WERE BE PERMIDABLE AND EFFECTIVE. AND THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD PSYCHOLOGISTS WERE THE SEAR PEOPLE. AND SO THE -- SO OUR PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO WEREN'T TRAINED ALSO, I THINK, IT WAS A NATURAL LEAP FOR THEM TO THINK, WELL PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUES AT THE SEAR SCHOOL IN BEHAVIORAL SIOLOGY MIGHT BE HELP TO ME.
03:29:16 Levin, Carl BUT YOU WERE AWARE AS A MATTER OF FACT IT WAS EXACTLY THE REVERSE PURPOSE.
03:29:22 Beaver, Diane NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SENATOR LEAVEN.
03:29:24 Levin, Carl WERE YOU AWARE OF IT AT THE TIME WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT SEAR TECHNIQUES. THE PURPOSE WAS TO INOCULATE OUR TROOPS AND THAT THESE WERE STUDENTS THAT WERE BEING TRAINED TO BE PREPARED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THOSE GENEVA TECHNIQUES AGAINST THEM. WERE YOU AWARE OF ALL THAT AND YET YOU CALL THAT A NATURAL LEAP WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE PURPOSE OF WHAT THAT PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE?
03:29:56 Beaver, Diane SIR, LATER I -- I BECAME AWARE OF MUCH OF THIS. AT THE TIME, GENERAL DUNLEAVY DID NOT INCLUDE ME IN THESE CONVERSATIONS. THE PEOPLE HE SENT TO THE SERE SCHOOL WAS FWHAUT IN ANY CONVERSATION THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN. I'M JUST POSTURING WHAT I THINK MY COLLEAGUES THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE THINKING IF -- IF, AGAIN, AN INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL THAT SERE EMPLOYEES GO TO THE SERE SCHOOL AND CHECK IT OUT FOR OURSELVES. I'M JUST SAYING THAT ON BEHALF OF -- OF MY COLLEAGUE.
03:30:30 Levin, Carl WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT NEITHER THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NOR ANY OF THE STAFF THERE PRODUCED A WRITTEN LEGAL ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL DUNLEAVY'S REQUEST?
03:30:41 Beaver, Diane WHEN MY -- WELL, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM THE MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND UP TOO COMMANDER DALTON. I TRIED TO GET HELP FROM MANNY SUPERVILLE, THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, AND HE WAS SILENT ON MY REQUEST. IN FACT, I REACHED HIM AT THE GOLF COURSE COLUMBUS DAY WEEKEND, WHICH WAS A FOUR-DAY HOLIDAY, AND SPOKE TO HIM AND SAID I'M SETTING UP THIS DRAFT. I REALLY NEED YOUR HELP. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. AND AT SOME POINT, AND I CAN'T SAY WHAT DATE. I TALKED TO CAPTAIN DALTON AND ASKED FOR HER HELP AND SHE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO SPEAK TO COLONEL SUPERVILLE, AND HE WOULDN'T HELP. SO I UNDERSTOOD I WAS ON MY OWN AS IT WERE REGARDING THE MILITARY. I REALLY HAD NO IDEA UNTIL REALLY 2004 WHEN MR. HAINES RELEASED BY LEGAL OPINION IN A JUNE 22nd, 2004, PRESS CONFERENCE OF MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAD OCCURRED SINCE I HAD RETIRED FROM ACTIVE DUTY. SO I REACHED OUT WITHIN MY MILITARY COMMUNITY AND NO HELP -- AND ALSO ONCE I SUBMITTED MY OPINION WITH THE REQUEST FROM GENERAL DUNLEAVY, I NEVER RECEIVED A PHONE CALL. I NEVER RECEIVED AN E-MAIL. I NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM COLONEL SUPERVILLE OR HIS STAFF ASKING ME ANYTHING. LIKE ARE YOU A LUNATIC? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? OR GREAT OPINION. OR I RECEIVED NOTHING FROM HIM AND UNTIL IT CAME BACK DOWN FROM THE DESK, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON. I FULLY EXPECTED GENERAL HILL TO MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION.
03:32:22 Levin, Carl DID YOU EXPECT THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND -- ADDITIONAL LEGAL ANALYSIS.
03:32:25 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:32:27 Levin, Carl WAIT A MINUTE. THAT YOUR OPINION WOULD NOT BE
03:32:30 Beaver, Diane NO, SIR.
03:32:32 Levin, Carl NO, SIR?
03:32:33 Beaver, Diane SORRY.
03:32:35 Levin, Carl MY QUESTION WAS WERE --
03:32:36 Beaver, Diane I'M SORRY.
03:32:37 Levin, Carl WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT YOUR OPINION BECAME THE OPINION THAT WAS RELIED UPON? DID YOU EXPECT --
03:32:42 Beaver, Diane SHOCKED.
03:32:43 Levin, Carl SHOCKED? WHY WERE YOU SHOCKED?
03:32:46 Beaver, Diane WELL, BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS I HAD EXPLAINED TO COLONEL SUPERVILLE THAT I NEEDED HIS INPUT WAS BECAUSE -- AND PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE MOMENT ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING ON THE ISLAND. LIKE THE INTERROGATIONS DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THE BEST PERSPECTIVE. AND THEY -- AND SO TO GET IT OFF THE ISLAND WAS MY GOAL. TO GET IT TO GENERAL HILL WHERE PEOPLE HAD ALL THE RESOURCES AT THEIR COMMAND. THEY COULD CALL MILITARY JUSTICE EXPERTS. ANYONE THEY NEEDED TO. AND TO MAKE A SORT OF, IF YOU WANT TO SAY, A CALM, RATIONAL, OBJECTIVE DECISION. I THOUGHT WAS THE BEST THING POSSIBLE. SO I FULLY EXPECTED GENERAL HILL'S STAFF TO WRITE UP SOMETHING AND THEN ALSO PRAPSH APPROVE A VERY NARROW SET OF INTERROGATION PRACTICES. AND, AGAIN, WAS VERY SURPRISED WHEN THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
03:33:38 Levin, Carl AND GENERAL HILL WAS THE SOUTHCOM COMMANDER?
03:33:41 Beaver, Diane YES, HE WAS.
03:33:42 Levin, Carl THANK YOU.
03:33:43 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU. DID YOU EVER SEE LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S MEMO?
03:33:52 Dalton, Jane YES, I DID.
03:33:53 Graham, Lindsey DID YOU EVER GET A REQUEST FROM HER TO GIVE YOU AN OPINION?
03:34:02 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I DON'T RECALL THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT COLONEL BEAVER RELATED.
03:34:07 Graham, Lindsey SO WHEN YOU SAW IT, WHAT DID YOU THINK?
03:34:14 Dalton, Jane WHETHER I SAW THE MEMO, I BELIEVED THAT THERE WERE SOME SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN IT.
03:34:22 Graham, Lindsey WHO DID YOU TELL?
03:34:30 Dalton, Jane WELL, THE FIRST THING -- I DISCUSSED -- AS I RECALL, I DISCUSSED THE MEMO WITH MY STAFF. I DON'T RECALL AT THAT TIME THAT I DISCUSSED THE MEMO WITH ANYONE ELSE.
03:34:41 Graham, Lindsey MR. MORROW, DO YOU RECALL SEEING LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S MEMO?
03:34:46 Mora, Alberto YES, SENATOR.
03:34:47 Graham, Lindsey WHAT DID YOU THINK? IS.
03:34:50 Mora, Alberto SIR, I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INADEQUATE TREATMENT OF VERY SENSITIVE AND VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES.
03:34:54 Graham, Lindsey WHAT DID YOU DO?
03:34:56 Mora, Alberto I IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT TO MR. HAINES AND POINTED OUT THAT FACT TO HIM.
03:35:04 Graham, Lindsey I UNDERSTAND -- I THINK I UNDERSTAND BETTER THAN I'VE EVER UNDERSTOOD THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAYED IN THIS. BOTTOM LINE, NO ONE MADE YOU WRITE THIS MEMO. IT WAS YOUR OWN WORK PRODUCT, CORRECT?
03:35:15 Beaver, Diane YES, BASED ON DUNLEAVY'S REQUEST TO SEND UP INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES TO GENERAL HILL. IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SIMPLY SAY NO LEGAL OBJECTION OR NO COMMENT AND SO --
03:35:26 Graham, Lindsey BUT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE FOR YOU TO REACH THE CONCLUSION?
03:35:28 Beaver, Diane NO, THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. IT WAS GENERATED BY ME AND MY STAFF AT THE REQUEST OF THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE TASK FORCE.
03:35:35 Graham, Lindsey YOU FELT YOU WERE HUNG OUT A BIT?
03:35:42 Beaver, Diane I -- I HAVE NO ANIMOSITY, BUT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME I WAS HUNG OUT BY THE SOUTHCOM SYA, CERTAINLY.
03:35:51 Graham, Lindsey FAIR ENOUGH. DURING THIS DEBATE ABOUT WHAT TECHNIQUES MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE PUTSCHER, IT WAS ALL TO GET BETTER INFORMATION, CORRECT?
03:35:58 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:35:59 Graham, Lindsey WAS WATERBOARDING MENTIONED?
03:36:03 Beaver, Diane THE DISCUSSION -- WELL, MAYBE IN TWO PARTS I CAN ANSWER THIS. ONE, THERE WAS A NAVY DOCTOR JUST HAPPENED TO BE ASSIGNED ON THE STAFF. THE HOSPITAL STAFF. WHO WAS DEPLOYED THERE FOR SIX MONTHS, AND HE HAD BEEN AT THE NAVY SERE SCHOOL FOR, I COULD BE WRONG, TWO YEARS' ASSIGNMENT. AND HE RELAID TO MYSELF AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AT GITMO THAT HE HAD OBSERVED -- AND, AGAIN Y COULD BE WRONG. IF IT WAS 2,000 OR 3,000 SAILORS, SERVICE MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN THROUGH THAT SCHOOL AND HAD ENDURED WATERWARDBOARDING AND HE DESCRIBED IT TO ME AND SAID ONLY TWO FAILED AND I'M USING HIS WORDS, FAILED TO GIVE IT UP AND THAT WAS THAT THEY WERE TWO S.E.A.L.S WHO WERE USED TO CONTROLLED DROWNING. HE SAID EVERYBODY ELSE GAVE IT UP. SO I BECAME AWARE OF THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE -- AND I SAY COMMUNITY BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE THERE FROM DIFFERENT COMMANDS AS WELL AS DIA. AND SO WHAT JERRY PFEIFFER AND A FEW OF THE OTHERS DISCUSSED WAS NOT THE -- LITERALLY THE BOARD, BUT PUTTING A -- A -- LIKE A WET TOWEL ON YOUR FACE TO MAKE YOU --
03:37:21 Graham, Lindsey THE BOTTOM LINE, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT SOMEONE WAS CONTEMPLATING USING THIS TECHNIQUE?
03:37:26 Beaver, Diane IF IT COULD BE DONE LEGALLY IN TERMS OF THE MEDICAL REVIEW OF THE DETAINEE AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS IN A VERY CONTROLLED, SUPERVISED SETTING, YES.
03:37:33 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
03:37:35 Beaver, Diane BUT ONLY -- AND I'M -- AND PART OF THIS IS THAT YOU DON'T JUMP TO ONE THING FIRST. I MEAN, MUCH OF IT THAT I LEARNED FROM MY -- THE PROFESSIONALS IS THAT YOU
03:37:45 Graham, Lindsey SURE.
03:37:46 Beaver, Diane AND THAT COULD BE JUST INTERVIEWING. AND SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF -- I THINK AN IMPRECISION OF EVERYONE GETS THE WATER BOARD.
03:37:57 Graham, Lindsey DOES THE UCMJ PROHIBIT WATERBOARDING? WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?
03:38:03 Beaver, Diane I THINK THAT'S A DIFFICULT ANSWER. AND THAT'S WHAT I STRUGGLED WITH IN MY OPINION, AND I'M NOT A MILITARY JUSTICE EXPERT. I TRIED TO RAISE --
03:38:11 Graham, Lindsey WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL BACKGROUND?
03:38:13 Beaver, Diane I'M A JACK OF ALL TRADES BASICALLY. I'VE DONE A LITTLE BET OF EVERYTHING. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR, INTEL LAW. I'VE DEPLOYED WITH SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDS IN DESERT SHIELD STORM. PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS. SO JUST REALLY A NUMBER OF -- I'VE BEEN A --
03:38:31 Graham, Lindsey WHEN YOU CALLED ADMIRAL DALTON, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO GET FROM HER?
03:38:35 Beaver, Diane BECAUSE MANNY WOULDN'T HELP ME, I WAS TRYING TO GET HELP FROM HER STAFF IN DEALING WITH SOME OF THESE DIFFICULT ISSUES.
03:38:44 Graham, Lindsey WHY DIDN'T YOU COME IN AND HELP, ADMIRAL DALTON?
03:38:50 Dalton, Jane AS I INDICATED, SIR, I DON'T RECALL THAT SPECIFIC CONVERSATION.
03:38:54 Graham, Lindsey WELL, ONCE YOU SAW THE MEMO AND YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT, WHY DIDN'T YOU DO WHAT MR. MORROW DID?
03:39:01 Dalton, Jane WHAT I DID, SENATOR, WHEN I RECEIVED THE MEMO WAS I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED, AND I DECIDED THAT WHAT I NEEDED TO DO AT MY LEVEL WAS TO CONDUCT A FURTHER LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW AS GENERAL HILL'S MEMO HAD REQUESTED. AND SO I ASKED MY STAFF TO BE IN DOING LEGAL RESEARCH AND TO SET -- TO BEGIN SETTING UP A LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW.
03:39:32 Graham, Lindsey WHAT WERE YOUR CONCLUSIONS?
03:39:33 Dalton, Jane WELL, OF THE LOCAL AND POLICY REVIEW, THAT -- I DID NOT ACTUALLY CONCLUDE THAT PROCESS AT THAT TIME.
03:39:43 Graham, Lindsey MR. MORROW, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS WAS THE WRONG ROAD TO GO DOWN?
03:39:50 Mora, Alberto SIR, WHEN -- THIS WAS -- AS SOON AS I HEARD THE RUMOR THAT ABUSE WAS GOING ON IN GUANTANAMO, I ACTED EVERY SINGLE DAY UNTIL THE RESCISSION OF THOSE INTERROGATION AUTHORIZATIONS WERE MADE BY SECRETARY RUMSFELD, PRMSLY THREE WEEKS LATER. BUT WHEN I SAW THE DECEMBER 2nd RUMSFELD MEMO AND THEN REVIEWED LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM, WHEN I SAW IT WAS UNBOUNDED CONCERNING THE LIMIT OF ABUSE THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO THE DETAINEES, I KNEW, SIR, THAT THIS WAS A FLAWED POLICY DECISION.
03:40:28 Graham, Lindsey IS IT FAIR TO SAY SOME OF THE SENIOR JUDGE ADVOCATES SHARED THAT VIEW?
03:40:31 Mora, Alberto SIR, EVERY JUDGE ADVOCATE I'VE EVER SPOKEN TO SHARES THAT VIEW.
03:40:38 Graham, Lindsey GIVEN WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE WAY WE'RE DOING BUSINESS NOW, DO YOU THINK WE'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE?
03:40:44 Mora, Alberto SENATOR, I'M -- I'M NOT CURRENT ON WHAT THE ACTUAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE TODAY. MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THE MILITARY IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, HOWEVER.
03:40:55 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU.
03:40:57 Graham, Lindsey ALL RIGHT. NOTHING FURTHER.
03:41:08 Levin, Carl I DON'T HAVE MY CHART.
03:41:15 Levin, Carl SENATOR PRYOR?
03:41:18 Pryor, Mark THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEEVE, LET ME START WITH YOU, IF I MAY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU DID NOT ATTEND THE SEPTEMBER '02 CONFERENCE UP AT FT. BRAGG?
03:41:29 Beaver, Diane NO, I DID NOT.
03:41:31 Pryor, Mark AND YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THAT CONFERENCE, FOR EXAMPLE? YOU DON'T KNOW IF -- IF IT WAS RECOMMENDED THERE THAT WE USE THE SERE TECHNIQUES IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER? YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?
03:41:48 Beaver, Diane I THINK WHAT I KNEW AT THE TIME WAS THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL -- OR THE BISCUITS, THE BEHAVIOR SCIENCE TIME, WHICH WAS A PSYCHIATRIST AND A PSYCHOLOGIST WOULD GAIN BENEFIT BY TALKING TO THEIR COUNTERPARTS AT THE SERE SCHOOL AND THAT ALSO THE -- I THINK THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE CONTINGENT THAT WENT WAS THERE ON A FACT-FINDING MISSION.
03:42:13 Pryor, Mark AND IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT FACT-FINDING MISSION WAS TO TRY TO TAKE SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES, ET CETERA, FROM SERE AND BEGIN TO USE THEM OFFENSIVELY AGAINST DETAINEES?
03:42:25 Beaver, Diane TO SEE IF ANY OF THE TECHNIQUES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE USED, YES.
03:42:29 Levin, Carl COULD YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE, COLONEL, MUCH CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH? THANKS.
03:42:34 Pryor, Mark YEAH. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME WAS PART OF THE PURPOSE AT LEAST OF THAT CONFERENCE WAS TO SEE IF YOU COULD APPLY THE SERE TECHNIQUES TO THE DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO?
03:42:49 Beaver, Diane I BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT GENERAL DUNLEAVY TOLD US AT A STAFF MEETING AFTER THE FACT, I MEAN AFTER THE -- AFTER -- THAT HIS PURPOSE WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT COULD BE USED AND -- BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING AT SENDING UP A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TECHNIQUES. SO YES.
03:43:08 Pryor, Mark OKAY. THAT'S INTERESTING. LET ME ASK THIS. IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU SAID "IN SHORT, THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES DISCUSSED IN MY LEGAL OPINION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN AN ABUSIVE OR UNLAWFUL MANNER IF THE APPROVAL AND CONTROL PROCEDURES I OUTLINED WERE FOLLOWED." SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WATERBOARDING SHOULD -- IS JUSTIFIED AS LONG AS THERE'S THE
03:43:39 Beaver, Diane NO. WHAT -- WHAT I MEANT WAS -- I DIDN'T APPROVE ANYTHING. I WROTE A LEGAL OPINION. SO WHATEVER THE COMMANDER -- WELL, AS IT TURNED OUT THE SECT APPROVED, IT WOULD BE APPLIED IN A MANNER TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING USED ABUSIVELY. SO THEY NEVER APPROVED WATERBOARDING, SO IT WAS NEVER ANYTHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED. BUT I -- I DID NOT -- I WAS NOT THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY AND SO I -- I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO REFER TO WAS THAT AN AGGRESS AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION HAD TO HAVE A LEGAL REVIEW. THE MEDICAL TEAM, EVERYONE HAD TO BE INVOLVED BEFORE YOU COULD APPLY A PLAN BECAUSE IT HAS TO HAVE A PURPOSE. IT CAN'T BE SADISTIC. IT HAS TO BE FOR A GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE. THIS ISN'T ABOUT DOING ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN. IT'S ABOUT ELICITING
03:44:33 Pryor, Mark OKAY.
03:44:35 Beaver, Diane SO IF WE HAD A PLAN IN PLACE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMANDER AND, AGAIN, ASSUMING WHATEVER HAD BEEN APPROVED BY, IN THIS CASE, THE COMMANDER, YOU WOULD HAVE A LAWFUL INTERROGATION CONDUCTED LAWFULLY, NOT ABUSIVELY.
03:44:48 Pryor, Mark OKAY. YOU REFER TO THIS LEGAL OPINION. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE OCTOBER 11, 2002, OPINION SIGNED OFF ON MY GENERAL PFEIFFER?
03:45:00 Beaver, Diane JERRY PFEIFFER IS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
03:45:03 Pryor, Mark YES.
03:45:04 Pryor, Mark IS THAT THE --
03:45:06 Beaver, Diane THAT'S MY LEGAL OPINION, YES, SIR.
03:45:07 Pryor, Mark SO IN OTHER WORDS YOU DRAFTED THAT?
03:45:08 Beaver, Diane YES. I MEAN, I -- ULTIMATELY I HAD PEOPLE THAT HELPED ME, BUT I SIGNED OFF ON THE FINAL.
03:45:15 Pryor, Mark ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK AT TAB SEVEN, THERE'S A MEMO THAT WE'VE REFERRED TO ALREADY. IT'S TAB SEVEN. IT'S A FIVE-PAGE MEMO. I'M GOING TO GO RIGHT TO PAGE 2 OF 5. IT SAYS THE FOLLOWING NOTES WERE TAKEN DURING THE MEETING AT 1340 ON OCTOBER 2, 2002. ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PARAPHRASED.
03:45:39 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR. THAT WAS DONE BY THE -- BY THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE.
03:45:44 Pryor, Mark AND YOU REFER TO THIS WITH SENATOR LEVIN IN THAT IT IS A PARAPHRASE AND THAT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW ACCURATE IT IS. SOME OF THIS YOU DON'T RECALL?
03:45:53 Beaver, Diane NOT FROM SIX YEARS AGO, NO, SIR.
03:45:54 Pryor, Mark WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS MEMO?
03:45:58 Beaver, Diane I THINK MARCH, BEFORE I SPOKE TO THE SENATE STAFF.
03:46:00 Pryor, Mark OKAY. SO IN THE LAST YEAR? SOMETIME THIS YEAR?
03:46:03 Beaver, Diane THIS PAST MARCH.
03:46:05 Pryor, Mark OKAY. DO YOU -- IN TERMS OF -- YOU'VE REVIEWED THIS MEMO, RIGHT?
03:46:10 Beaver, Diane I'VE SEEN IT, YES, SIR.
03:46:12 Pryor, Mark AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF YOUR STATEMENTS IN THERE? I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE --
03:46:17 Beaver, Diane THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO KNOW IF MY STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATE BECAUSE IT'S SIX YEARS AGO, AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO RECLICATE WHAT I EXACTLY SAID OR EXACTLY HOW THE CITF PERSONNEL CHOSE TO PHRASE A PARTICULAR ISSUE OR THE IMPORTANCE THEY PUT ON IT. SO I DON'T KNOW ASCRIBE ANY MALINTENT TOWARDS THEM, BUT THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS ACCURATE.
03:46:39 Pryor, Mark LET ME ASK ABOUT AN IMPRESSION I HAVE, AND THAT IS ON PAGE THREE, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU COME ACROSS IN THIS AS BEING EAGER TO HAVE THESE TECHNIQUES USED. COLONEL COMMINGS SAYS WE DON'T DO SLEEP DEPRIVATION. YOU SAY YES, WE CAN, CAN APPROVAL. AND THIS NEXT STATEMENT I THINK IS ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. IT SAYS DISRUPTING THE NORMAL CAMP OPERATION IS VITAL. WE NEED TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF CONTROLLED CHAOS. YOU KNOW, WE COULD GO DOWN THROUGH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS IN HERE, BUT AT THAT TIME, DO YOU REMEMBER, WERE YOU TRYING TO GET TO THE ANSWER THAT WE COULD USE THESE SERE TECHNIQUES AGAINST DETAINEES?
03:47:22 Beaver, Diane I CAN SAY THAT THE -- MY COUNTERPARTS IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE WERE VERY UNHAPPY WITH THESE -- THIS LINE OF DISCUSSION. I OFFERED THEM ALWAYS TO PARTICIPATE. I OFFERED THEM TO WRITE THEIR OWN LEGAL OPINION, WHICH THEY NEVER DID. THEY WROTE A POLICY PIECE, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD THE POLICY CONCERNS ALREADY. BUT I NEVER RECEIVED ANY LEGAL OBJECTIONS BASED IN THE LAW. I -- SO I KNOW THAT THEY WERE ALL VERY UNHAPPY WITH ME AT THAT
03:47:52 Pryor, Mark UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS?
03:47:56 Beaver, Diane WITH ME HAVING DISCUSSIONS AT ALL ABOUT AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
03:48:00 Pryor, Mark IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DID NOT LIKE THIS POLICY DIRECTION?
03:48:03 Beaver, Diane NO, THEY WANTED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES ONLY, AND SO YOU HAD THE CLASH OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ENTAILGENCE INTERROGATORS, WHICH THEY SAW THEIR ROLE AS BEING THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN.
03:48:18 Pryor, Mark WELL, LET ME ASK THIS. THERE'S A CONVERSATION IN HERE ABOUT SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND YOU -- YOU'RE QUOTED AS SAYING -- YOU'RE PARAPHRASED AS SAYING TRUE, BUT OFFICIALLY IT IS NOT HAPPENING. IT IS NOT BEING REPORTED OFFICIALLY. THE ICRC IS A SERIOUS CONCERN, WHICH IS THE RED CROSS.
03:48:36 Beaver, Diane UH-HUH.
03:48:38 Pryor, Mark SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IN ADDITION TO ADVOCATING THIS, YOU MAYBE WERE TRYING TO COVER THIS UP AS WELL.
03:48:44 Beaver, Diane NO, SIR. I WAS THE LEAZEN TO THE ICRC AND I WORKED VERY WELL WITH THEM, I BELIEVE. AND, AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO RECONSTRUCT SOMETHING SIX YEARS LATER. IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN ACTIVE INTERROGATION AND THEN THE ICRC VISITS AND WANTS TO SEE THAT PERSON, YOU CAN'T STOP YOUR INTERROGATION TO TAKE THEM OUT AND DISRUPT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. AND SO AT DIFFERENT TIMES THE ICRC WOULD BE DOWN THERE AND THEY'D BE THERE FOR SIX WEEKS AND LEAVE. SO I CAN ONLY -- I MEAN, HAZARD THAT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO LIKE A MORE INTENSE INTERROGATION THAT WOULD LAST A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, YOU HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD THE TIME TO DO IT AND THAT YOU WEREN'T DISRUPTED.
03:49:30 Pryor, Mark AND DID YOU -- AND WHEN YOU SAY DISRUPTED, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D RATHER NOT HAVE THE ICRC --
03:49:35 Beaver, Diane NO. THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE -- THEY TALKED TO ALL OF THE DETAINEES. BUT IF YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERROGATION AND THEY WANT ACCESS TO A PARTICULAR DETAINEE, YOU CAN'T DISRUPT YOUR INTERROGATION TO HAVE THEM INTERVIEWED BY THE ICRC.
03:49:50 Pryor, Mark LET ME ASK THIS BECAUSE I'M JUST ABOUT OUT OF TIME. IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF SENATOR GRAHAM'S QUESTIONS YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH UCMJ.
03:50:01 Beaver, Diane NO, I SAID I WASN'T A MILITARY LAW EXPERT. WE HAVE EXPERTS IN THE ARMY THAT DO THIS FOR A LIVING. MY HOPE WAS THAT WHEN MY OPINION WENT UP TO GENERAL HILL THAT MY CONCERNS ABOUT MILITARY PERSONNEL BEING INVOLVED AT THESE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED BY PEOPLE WHO DO THIS FULL-TIME. WE CALL IT T-WRAP. BUT ANYWAY, THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE THE TIME AND THE RESOURCES TO -- TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MILITARY.
03:50:32 Pryor, Mark THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. BUT IN YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS AT THE TIME --
03:50:39 Beaver, Diane UH-HUH.
03:50:42 Pryor, Mark -- DID YOU LOOK AT THE UCMJ?
03:50:43 Beaver, Diane YES.
03:50:44 Pryor, Mark DID YOU LOOK AT U.S. LAW?
03:50:45 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:50:46 Pryor, Mark DID YOU LOOK AT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
03:50:48 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:50:49 Pryor, Mark DID YOU LOOK AT THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS? DID YOU LOOK AT THE ARMY
03:50:53 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
03:50:56 Pryor, Mark AND DO YOU HAVE MEMROWS OR DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF ALL THOSE MATERIALS AND HAVE YOU PROVIDED THOSE TO THE COMMITTEE?
03:51:05 Beaver, Diane I -- I DON'T HAVE -- WHATEVER WAS RETRIEVED FROM GITMO, THE COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE. I WAS NOT -- I MEAN, I DIDN'T TAKE THINGS WITH ME. IT WAS CLASSIFIED. SO WHATEVER I USED CAME FROM HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS OPINIONS. ALL SORTS OF THINGS. BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT -- IF D.O.D. HAD IT, D.O.D. WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IT. BUT THE LEGAL OPINION IS WHAT MY ANALYSIS PROVIDED ON THOSE ISSUES.
03:51:34 Pryor, Mark IN OTHER WORDS, DID YOU -- AT GITMO, DID YOU KEEP A FILE WITH ALL YOUR LEGAL RESEARCH IN IT?
03:51:41 Beaver, Diane I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE WOULD HAVE KEPT IT SIX YEARS LATER.
03:51:43 Pryor, Mark BUT DID YOU HAVE ONE?
03:51:44 Beaver, Diane AT THE TIME, YES. IT WAS ON A SHARED -- SECURED NETWORK.
03:51:51 Pryor, Mark AND YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO INCOMMITTEE?
03:51:54 Beaver, Diane I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. I LEFT GITMO IN 2003.
03:51:57 Pryor, Mark THANK YOU.
03:51:58 Beaver, Diane BUT I PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR IT IN THE OPINION. SO YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN CITATIONS TO THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT.
03:52:06 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. SENATOR WARNER?
03:52:11 Warner, John THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO THANK THIS PANEL FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THESE VERY SERIOUS ISSUES. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS TO ADMIRAL DALTON. FIRST, MAY I CONGRATULATE YOU ON A VERY DISTINGUISHED CAREER IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. AND TO HAVE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF -- HAVE YOUR PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES RECOGNIZED AND WERE GIVEN A FLAG RANK. AM I NOT CORRECT?
03:52:44 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR, FOR A WOMAN, YES, SIR.
03:52:46 Warner, John THAT'S A GREAT COMMENDATION TO YOU.
03:52:47 Dalton, Jane THANK YOU, SIR.
03:52:48 Warner, John I LISTENED TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, AND I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY REFERRING TO THE VANITY FAIR ARTICLE, WHICH I PRESUME YOU'VE READ MORE THAN ONCE. AT THE LEVEL OF THE JOENT CHIEFS, THE MOMEO SHOULD HAVE DIN SUBJECT TO A CLOSE REVIEW. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. IT SEEMS THAT JIM HAINES SHORT-CIRCUITED THE APPROVAL PROCESS. ALBERT MORA, THE GENERAL COUNSEL, SAYS HE REMEMBERED DALTON TELLING HIM "JIM PULLED US AWAY. WE NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT." NOW, HAVING SPENT SOME WONDERFUL YEARS MYSELF IN THAT BUILDING, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, I'VE ALWAYS FOUND HISTORICALLY THAT WE HAVE CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. AND IT HAS FUNCTIONED AND FUNCTIONED WELL THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. BUT WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE, THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INDEPENDENCE THAT'S ACCORDED THE CHIEFS OF THE VARIOUS MILITARY BRANCH. CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, SO FORTH. AND THEN WHEN WE STRUCTURED THE -- THE JCS ORGANIZATION AND THE CHAIRMAN WAS DESIGNATED, HE WAS SORT OF THE FOCAL POINT OF THE CHIEFS. AND HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS THE CHIEF MILITARY ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE PRESIDENT. WHAT INTERESTS ME IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE CHIEFS AT THAT TIME EXERCISED THEIR INDEPENDENCE. THIS COMMITTEE, AND I WAS PRIVILEGED TO BE A PART OF THE COMMITTEE AND VERY ACTIVE IN WRITING AND THAT WAS THE LAW AT THE TIME THIS SITUATION OCCURRED. AND THAT GAVE AN AVENUE BY WHICH MEMBERS OF THE JCS INDEED THE CHAIRMAN, IF THEY HAD DISAGREEMENTS WITH CERTAIN POLICY MATTERS, COULD ADDRESS THEM DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT IF NECESSARY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCEDURE. I HAVE STATED IT CORRECTLY?
03:55:11 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
03:55:12 Warner, John WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN AT THAT TIME BY THE SENIOR MILITARY, EITHER THE CHAIRMAN OR MEMBERS OF THE TANK, TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF HIGHER AUTHORITY THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS POLICY CHANGE?
03:55:33 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE WHAT POLICY CHANGE YOU'RE --
03:55:35 Warner, John WELL, THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE -- MORE AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES FOR THE DETAINEES AT GITMO. THE MEMORANDUM THAT WE'VE BEEN
03:55:46 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR. AT THE -- WELL --
03:55:49 Warner, John IN OTHER WORDS, THIS ARTICLE -- AND I THINK YOU'VE CONFIRMED IT'S CORRECT. YOU STOPPED YOUR ANALYSIS, WHAT YOU WERE DOING FOR THE CHAIRMAN AND THAT TIME RICHARD MARS. AM I CORRECT?
03:56:01 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR, SENATOR.
03:56:02 Warner, John NOW, TO ME THAT WAS A VARIANCE IN NORMAL PROCEDURES, AND THE CHAIRMAN WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPER TEES AND KNOWLEDGE AND YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT LEGAL ANALYSIS. HE HAD A, I THINK, A DUTY TO GO INTO THE TANK AND DISCUSS IT. WAS IT EVER DISCUSSED IN THE TANK?
03:56:25 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, LET ME JUST CLARIFY. WHEN THE MEMO CAME IN FROM GENERAL HILL ASKING FOR THE ENHANCED TECHNIQUES, ON THE -- THE MEMO WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE SERVICES AND THE SERVICES, AS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED,
03:56:41 Warner, John CORRECT.
03:56:43 Dalton, Jane THEY ASKED FOR -- THE SERVICES --
03:56:46 Warner, John NOW, THEY BEING THE SERVICES
03:56:47 Dalton, Jane THAT'S --
03:56:49 Warner, John I WANT TO DEFINE WHO "THEY" IS.
03:56:51 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. THE SERVICES SENT IN RESPONSES TO THE JOINT STAFF TASKER ASKING FOR INPUTS ON THE GENERAL HILL MEMO.
03:57:00 Warner, John RIGHT.
03:57:02 Dalton, Jane LOF THE SERVICES EXPOROSISED CONCERNSES ABOUT THE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE LISTED IN THE MEMO. THEY ALSO EXPRESSED THEIR UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION FOR THE NEED FOR INTELLIGENCE
03:57:14 Warner, John CORRECT.
03:57:16 Dalton, Jane AND THEN THEY -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT ALL FOUR OF THEM SUGGESTED THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE FURTHER LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW AS GENERAL HILL HAD SUGGESTED IN HIS MEMO.
03:57:24 Warner, John CORRECT.
03:57:27 Dalton, Jane AND SO THE NEXT STEP THEN WAS TO PROCEED WITH A LARGER GENERAL AND POLICY REVIEW, COME IS WHAT I INTENDED TO DO.
03:57:36 Warner, John AND NOT ONLY INTENDED, BUT YOU INITIATED.
03:57:39 Dalton, Jane THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR. WHEN I LEARNED THAT MR. HAINES DID NOT WANT THAT BROAD-BASED LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW TO TAKE PLACE, THEN I STOOD DOWN FROM THE PLANS --
03:57:49 Warner, John ALL RIGHT. LET'S NOW CLARIFY EXACTLY HOW YOU WERE TOLD TO STAND DOWN. WAS IT IN WRITING OR WAS IT VERBAL?
03:57:59 Dalton, Jane IT WAS NOT IN WRITING, SENATOR. AND MY -- THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AS TO HOW THIS OCCURRED IS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CALLED ME ASIDE AND INDICATED TO ME THAT MR. HAINES DID NOT WANT THIS BROAD-BASED REVIEW TO TAKE PLACE. AND THAT I SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO INTERACT WITH -- I MEAN, THE CHAIRMAN'S WORDS WERE NOT THIS DETAILED. IT WAS A VERY BRIEF MEETING. HE CALLED ME ASIDE AND SAID, MR. HAINES DOES NOT WANT THIS PROCESS TO PROCEED. HOWEVER, THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT I THEN STOPPED DOING ALL LEGAL ANALYSIS OR ALL LEGAL REVIEW ON -- I CONTINUED TO ENGAGE WITH MR. HAINES' OFFICE. AND THIS IS THE PIECE THAT I THINK IS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN CLEAR. IS THAT WHEN I STOPPED THE ANALYSIS THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE SERVICES AND THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND ALL OF THOSE VARIOUS AGENCIES, NEVERTHELESS I CONTINUED TO WORK WITH GENERAL -- WITH MR. HAINES' OFFICE AND WITH THE CHAIRMAN IN TERMS OF REVIEWING AND ANALYZING GENERAL HILL'S REQUEST. SO THE -- AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO PERCEIVED NEED TO GO TO THE CHIEFS AND COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING OR TO THE PRESIDENT AND COMPLAIN OR THE SECRETARY BECAUSE THE PROCESS WAS STILL PROCEEDING IN THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS A VERY SENSITIVE ISSUE, THAT MR. HAINES WANTED THIS TO BE HELD VERY CLOSE HOLD. AND I BELIEVED THAT HIS PREROGATIVE AS THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS TO HAVE HIS OFFICE TAKE THE LEAD. I WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE CHAIRMAN AND WORK WITH MR. HAINES' OFFICE.
03:59:45 Warner, John WELL, WHEN HE CREATED THE FINAL PRODUCT, WHAT WAS YOUR PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS AT THAT TIME AND ADVICE TO THE CHAIRMAN?
03:59:55 Dalton, Jane SIR, BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE INTERACTION THAT I HAD HAD WITH MR. HAINES' OFFICE, WITH GUANTANAMO, WITH SOUTHCOM, I BELIEVED THAT THE TECHNIQUES THAT THE SECRETARY APPROVED IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE DISCUSSED AND IN WHICH HE APPROVED THEM COULD, IN FACT, BE CONDUCTED HUMANELY IN ACCORDANCE
04:00:17 Warner, John HUMANELY? IS THAT THE WORD THAT YOU USED?
04:00:21 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
04:00:24 Warner, John AND DID YOU FEEL THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW AND OTHER LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES?
04:00:32 Dalton, Jane IF THEY WERE CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THE -- WITH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD HAD IN TERMS OF THE OVERSIGHT, THE SUPERVISION BY THE -- BY THE COMMANDER WITH, IN FACT, SUPERVISION BY THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE AND, AGAIN, IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE DISCUSSED, AND LET ME EXPLAIN IF I MAY THAT THE REMOVAL OF CLOTHING WAS NOT NUDITY. THERE WAS NEVER A DISCUSSION THAT THAT WOULD INVOLVE NUDITY. THE USE OF MILITARY WORKING DOGS WAS NOT TO HAVE WORKING DOGS IN AN INTERROGATION BOOTH UNMUZZLED AND SNARLING AT THE DETAINEES. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SECRETARY APPROVED. THE STRESS TECHNIQUES WERE LIMITED TO STANDING FOR FOUR HOURS. SO WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THESE FACTORS TOGETHER WITH THE OVERSIGHT, WITH THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD MANDATED THAN THE DETAINEES BE TREATED HUMANELY, THEN I BELIEVE THAT THOSE TECHNIQUES COULD BE CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THOSE INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAWS.
04:01:36 Warner, John IT'S NOTED IN THIS ARTICLE THAT GENERAL MARS MADE A POINT THAT MY INITIALS ARE NOT ON THE DOCUMENT. DOES THAT INDICATE THAT HE HAD SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS AND DID HE EXPRESS SOME OF THOSE RESERVATIONS WITH YOU? IT SAYS NORMALLY HE WOULD HAVE INITIALLED A MEMO TO INDICATE APPROVAL. BUT THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATION THAT MARS HAD SEEN THE MEMO OR FORMALLY SIGNED OFF ON IT. I CAN'T DIGEST THIS THAT QUICKLY. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT AT ALL?
04:02:14 Warner, John WHAT'S THIS? WHO HANDED ME THIS? WHO HANDED ME -- WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? WHAT DOES IT SAY?
04:02:36 Warner, John WOULD YOU FINISH? I'M SORRY.
04:02:41 Dalton, Jane EXCUSE ME, SENATOR. SENATOR, IN -- IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE -- MR. HAINES' MEMO OF THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY ON THE 2nd OF DECEMBER, THERE WERE MEETINGS ON -- AT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEVEL INVOLVING GENERAL MYERS, INVOLVING MR. HAINES AND MYSELF. IN THOSE MEETINGS, WE DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS TECHNAEKS, THE SAFEGUARDS THAT WOULD BE APPLIED, AND MY UNDERSTANDING AND RECOLLECTION IS THAT GENERAL MYERS WAS SATISFIED WITH THE TECHNIQUES THAT THE SECRETARY
04:03:14 Warner, John ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MY TIME IS UP.
04:03:21 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR WARNER. SENATOR REED?
04:03:23 Reed, Jack THANK YOU. ADMIRAL DALTON, AS YOU'VE INDICATED, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE REQUEST AND GENERAL MYERS RECEIVED THE REQUEST, THE REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED AND THEY RAISED CONCERNS, BUT THESE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. THE ARMY JAGS SAID THAT THE STRESS POSITIONS, DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT TO INDUCE STRESS CROSSES THE LINE OF HUMANE TREATMENT. THE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISOR OF THE TASK FORCE SAID THAT CERTAIN TECHNIQUES MADE SERVICE MEMBERS TO -- THE AIR FORCE SAID THAT THE TECHNIQUES MAY FAIL TO MEET REQUIREMENTS TO TREAT DETAINEES HUMANELY. THE MORAINEUARINE CORPS SAID THAT THE TECHNIQUES VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD EXPOSE OUR SERVICE
04:04:09 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
04:04:11 Reed, Jack THOSE ARE ACCURATE SUMMARIES?
04:04:12 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR.
04:04:13 Reed, Jack DID YOU MAKE GENERAL MYERS AWARE OF ALL THOSE CONCERNS?
04:04:20 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT -- THAT THE DECISION-MAKERS WERE AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN --
04:04:26 Reed, Jack NO, I'M ASKING YOU SPECIFICALLY. AS THE COUNSEL TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, DID YOU MAKE HIM FULLY AWARE OF THE VARIOUS SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY UNIFORMED OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY?
04:04:39 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC KFRGS THAT I HAD WITH THE CHAIRMAN, BUT IT IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THESE CONCERNS AND I MADE HIM AWARE OF THOSE CONCERNS. YES, SIR.
04:04:49 Reed, Jack DID HE MAKE MR. HAINES AWARE OF THOSE CONCERNS?
04:04:52 Dalton, Jane I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I -- I -- SENATOR, I -- IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD AND THE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, MY -- MY, IS THAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND ADDRESSED AS A PART OF THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T RECALL THAT ANYONE SPECIFICALLY PULLED OUT MEMOS AND SHOWED INMEMOS, BUT THAT WE WERE AWARE THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS AND THOSE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE SAFEGUARDS AND THE WAY THAT THE TECHNIQUES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
04:05:25 Reed, Jack YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. HAINES, ALTHOUGH YOU WERE TOLD -- AND, AGAIN Y THINK YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR. YOU WERE HOLD THROUGH GENERAL MYERS TO STOP ANY FORMAL LEGAL ANALYSIS. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:05:40 Dalton, Jane I WAS TOLD TO STOP THE BROAD-BASED LEGAL REVIEW AND POLICY REVIEW THAT WOULD HAVE INVOLVED THE SERVICES AND THE OTHER AGENCIES. I WAS TOLD TO STOP THE BROAD-BASED ANALYSIS.
04:05:54 Reed, Jack BUT YOU WERE TOLD OR NOT DISSUADED BY GENERAL MYERS TO CONTINUE TO EVALUATE ALL OF THESE OPTIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MR. HAINES?
04:06:01 Dalton, Jane I'M SORRY, SIR. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. GENERAL MYERS DID NOT PREVENT ME FROM CONTINUING TO DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. HAINES, NO.
04:06:08 Reed, Jack SO YOU -- WERE YOU -- WERE YOU PRIVY TO ALL DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. HANSZ ON THESE TOPICS?
04:06:13 Dalton, Jane I'M SURE I WAS NOT, SURE.
04:06:15 Reed, Jack SO SELECTIVELY YOU PARTICIPATED? WELL, YOU PARTICIPATED IN -- NOT IN EVERY DISCUSSION, BUT IN
04:06:23 Dalton, Jane YES. YES, SIR.
04:06:25 Reed, Jack AND DID YOU RAISE THESE CONCERNS, NOT IN A -- DID YOU RAISE SPECIFIC CONCERNS, A VIOLATION OF UCMJ?
04:06:36 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I DON'T -- AGAIN, I -- I HAVE A HARD TIME RECALLING THE SPECIFICS OF ANY PARTICULAR CONVERSATION AND A PARTICULAR MEETING. I BELIEVE THESE CONCERNS WERE KNOWN AND ADDRESSED. AND IN THE -- AS I SAID BEFORE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MEETINGS AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD. WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE WERE ISSUED RELATED TO UCMJ CONCERNS. THERE WERE ISSUED RELATED TO FEDERAL AND DOMESTIC LAW CONCERNS AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL LAW.
04:07:01 Reed, Jack AND YOU WERE SATISFIED THAT THAT -- THAT YOU WERE SATISFIED THAT THESE CONCERNS WERE FULLY ADDRESSED BY MR. HAINES OR BY SOMEONE?
04:07:11 Dalton, Jane I WAS SATISFIED, YES, SENATOR. I WAS SATISFIED THAT THE -- THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD, THAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED.
04:07:21 Reed, Jack YOU MENTIONED THE FACT THAT -- AND I THINK IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR WARNER THAT GENERAL MYERS SIGNED OFF ON THE TECHNIQUES.
04:07:33 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR, HE -- I'M SORRY. HE -- AS STATED IN --
04:07:36 Dalton, Jane RIGHT. AS STATED IN MR. HAINES' MEMO, HE AGREED THAT THE APPROVAL OF THOSE TECHNIQUES COULD BE CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WITH --
04:07:46 Reed, Jack YOU READ MR. HAINES' MEMO?
04:07:47 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR.
04:07:48 Reed, Jack OKAY. AT THE TIME IT WAS RELEASED? CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE RELEASE?
04:07:56 Dalton, Jane SHORTLY AFTER THE RELEASE.
04:07:58 Reed, Jack DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THIS MEMORANDUM?
04:08:02 Dalton, Jane I SPECIFICALLY DID -- I WAS NOT ASKED TO OPINE -- AND I DO NOT RECALL THAT I OPINED ON THE DETAILS. THERE WAS ONE PHRASE IN THE MEMORANDUM WHICH SAID THAT ARGUABLY ALL OF THE TECHNIQUES WOULD BE LEGAL OR AUTHORIZED INCLUDING THE THREE THAT WERE NOT THISZED. I DID NOT -- I WAS NOT ASKED TO OPINE ON THE MEMO, BUT I DID NOT NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS CORRECT.
04:08:30 Reed, Jack DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO GENERAL MYERS AS HE WAS REFERFERENCED TO AS WHAT GIVE -- THAT THERE WERE ELEMENTS THAT YOU THOUGHT HAD SERIOUS LEGAL PROBLEMS?
04:08:41 Dalton, Jane SIR Y WASN'T AWARE OF THE MEMO UNTIL AFTER MR. HAINES HAD INITIATED IT AND THE SECRETARY HAD SIGNED IT.
04:08:49 Reed, Jack WELL, BUT IF IT -- IF THE LEGAL -- IF THE MEMORANDUM HAD LEGAL CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU SIGNIFICANTLY DISAGREE WITH, DIDN'T YOU FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO AT LEAST MAKE GENERAL MYERS AWARE OF IT?
04:09:02 Dalton, Jane AFTER THE FACT, SENATOR?
04:09:03 Reed, Jack SURE.
04:09:04 Dalton, Jane SINCE THE SECRETARY HAD NOT TLISZED THOSE TECHNIQUES, I DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARILY TO GO INTO A LOT OF DETAILS WITH THE CHAIRMAN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT EVERY WORD IN THE MEMORANDUM WAS CORRECT. THE SECRETARY AUTHORIZED LESS THAN THE FULL CATEGORY OF TECHNIQUES, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS SATISFIED WITH AND WHAT GENERAL MYERS WAS SATISFIED WITH.
04:09:25 Reed, Jack IT SAID THAT ALL OF THE TECHNIQUES WERE LEGAL, BUT AS A POLICY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BLANKET APPROVAL.
04:09:30 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR.
04:09:33 Reed, Jack LEAVING IT UP TO -- LEAVING THE ISSUE THAT THE OFFICIAL OPINION ENDORSED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IS THESE ELLYLE TECHNIQUES, CORRECT? I WOULD NOT -- I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.
04:09:47 Dalton, Jane I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THAT WAS THE LEGAL OPINION ENDORSED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WAS APPROVING THE USE OF PARTICULAR TECHNIQUES. AS TO WHETHER OR NOT OTHER TECHNIQUES MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE LEGAL, IF THE COMBATANT COMMANDER WANTED TO USE THOSE TECHNIQUES, HE'D HAVE TO COME UP AND ASK AND THERE WOULD BE A REVIEW. IT WASN'T NECESSARILY GIVEN THAT THE SECRETARY APPROVED THE ONES THAT HE DID.
04:10:17 Reed, Jack BUT THEY -- THE ONLY REASON THIS IS NOT A BLANKET APPROVAL IS A MATTER OF LAW. AS I READ THIS, CATEGORY THREE MAY BE AVAILABLE. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ESSENTIALLY. AND YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ANALYSIS?
04:10:30 Dalton, Jane NO, SIR, I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ANALYSIS ANALYSIS. I DID NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO ENGAGE ON THAT SUBJECT SINCE INSECRETARY HAD ALREADY APPROVED THE TECHNIQUES AND THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE PROVIDING TO THE COMBATANT COMMANDERS.
04:10:48 Reed, Jack YOU ARE AWARE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S OPINION?
04:10:51 Dalton, Jane YES.
04:10:53 Reed, Jack SHE SAID THE PROPOSAL TO GRAB, POKE IN THE CHEST, PUSH LIGHTLY AND PLACE A WET TOWEL OR -- OVER THE DETAINEE'S HEAD WOULD CONSTITUTION A VIOLATION OF ASSAULT. ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT YOU APPROVED WAS PUSHING OR POKING LIGHTLY. DO YOU DISAGREE?
04:11:12 Dalton, Jane I DISAGREE THAT ANALYSIS, YES.
04:11:15 Reed, Jack HOW ABOUT ARTICLE 93 OF THE UCMJ WHICH FORBIDS MALTREATMENT OF ANYONE UNDER THE CONTROL OF MILITARY PERSONNEL?
04:11:29 Dalton, Jane I DIDN'T CONSIDER POKING TO BE MALTREATMENT.
04:11:32 Reed, Jack SO YOU WOULD ALSO DISAGREE WITH COLONEL BEAVER IN HER SUGGESTION THAT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF UCMJ, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE IMMUNITY OR -- YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT?
04:11:44 Dalton, Jane THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
04:11:48 Reed, Jack MR. MORA, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 93 OF THE UCMJ.
04:11:54 Mora, Alberto I NEVER FOCUSED ON THOSE SPECIFIC MATTERS. MY CONCERN WITH THE MEMO IS THAT IT DIDN'T PRODUCE A BRIGHT LINE. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU MAY ENGAGE IN THESE TACTICS JUST UNTIL YOU REACH THE POINT WHERE IT REACHES CRUEL TREATMENT AND THEN YOU MAY GO NO FURTHER. THERE WAS NO SUCH BOUNDARY ANYWHERE IN THE MEMORANDUM. IT WAS ALL SUBJECT TO ABUSE.
04:12:17 Reed, Jack COLONEL BAULTEN, FINAL QUESTION. PART OF YOUR RATIONALE FOR AGREEING WITH THE CONCLUSION IS THE FACT THAT YOU OBJECTED TO TECHNIQUES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROVED LEGALLY BY MR. HAINES, BUT YOU KEEP CITING THE CONDITIONS. WHERE IN ANY OF THESE MATERIALS ARE THERE THOSE CONDITIONS AS MR. MORA REFERS TO THAT WOULD SPECIFIC GUIDANCE? I DON'T THINK THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SIGNED A MEMORANDUM THAT TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS. ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT HE APPROVED?
04:12:53 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THE CONDITIONS WERE IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONTEXTS ON -- IN THE COLONEL PFEIFFER MEMO THAT CAME UP, IT SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WAS A -- THAT WAS ATTACHED TO GENERAL HILL'S MEMO, COLONEL PFEIFFER'S MEMO LISTED THE TECHNIQUES. AND THAT ONE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE USE OF THE TECHNIQUES, AT LEAST THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES --
04:13:17 Reed, Jack WELL, THE PFEIFFER MEMO SAID -- WHERE IS THERE A DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT THESE ARE MANDATORY? AS PART OF THE USE OF THESE TECHNIQUES?
04:13:26 Dalton, Jane THERE -- THE ONLY THING IN WRITING FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WAS HIS APPROVAL OF MR. HAINES' MEMO. MY -- AS -- THERE WERE MEETINGS LEADING UP TO THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL OF THE MEMO AND THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS -- AND OF THE DISCUSSIONS WERE ONE PARTICULAR DETAINEE, THE PARTICULARLY HIGH-VALUED DETAINEE THAT HAD RESISTED. IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION.
04:13:51 Reed, Jack THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
04:13:56 Levin, Carl SENATOR McCASKILL?
04:14:00 McCaskill, Claire LET ME START BY SAYING HOW PROUD AS AN AMERICAN I AM OF YOU, MR. MORA. IT'S -- IT'S -- COURAGE COMES IN ALL FORMS. AND YOU SHOWED GREAT COURAGE. LET ME TUT -- CUT TO THE CHASE HERE AND SEE IF WE CAN REACH SOME AGREEMENT. MS. DAULTEN AND MS. BEAVER, DO YOU BOTH BELIEVE THAT PUTTING A GROUP OF DETAINEES TOGETHER COMPLETELY NAKED, HOODED, AND SICKING DOGS ON THEM IS LEGAL UNDER THE UMCJ OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT OUR MILITARY SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO? DO YOU THINK THAT'S LEGAL?
04:14:41 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S LEGAL. THAT WAS NEVER APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
04:14:45 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. MS. BEAVER, DO YOU THINK THAT'S LEGAL?
04:14:50 Beaver, Diane NO, MA'AM. AND IT NEVER OCCURRED AT GITMO.
04:14:53 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M READING THIS LEGAL MEMO AND THE MEMO BY MR. PFEIFFER. I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, YOU'RE BOTH TRAINED LAWYERS, CORRECT?
04:15:04 Beaver, Diane YES, MA'AM.
04:15:06 McCaskill, Claire AND YOU BOTH KNOW THAT WORDS MATTER A LOT IN THE LAW. THE DIFFERENCE OF ONE WORD CAN MAKE A HUGE IMPACT ON A LEGAL ANALYSIS. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRAINED AS A LAWYER TO UNDERSTAND. IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BEAVER?
04:15:22 Beaver, Diane YES.
04:15:23 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR.
04:15:27 McCaskill, Claire THIS MEMO SAYS REMOVAL OF CLOTHING UNDER CATEGORY TWO, AND IT SAYS UNDER CATEGORY TWO, USING DETAINEE PHOBIAS SUCH AS FEAR OF DOGS. NOW, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS A LAWYER HOW REMOVAL OF CLOTHING AND USING FEAR OF DOGS DOES NOT ENVISION NAKED PEOPLE. BY THE WAY, THE HOOD IS IN THERE, TOO. NAKED PEOPLE HAVING DOGS SICKED ON THEM. HOW DOES THAT NOT OCCUR TO EITHER OF YOU THAT THAT MIGHT BE ENVISIONED?
04:15:59 Beaver, Diane BECAUSE, MA'AM, IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE STAFF HAD, WHEN YOU GEP A PLAN, A PLAN OF INTERROGATION, THERE ARE LIMITS AND CONDITIONS AND THERE ARE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S COMMAND APPROVAL. IF SOMEBODY SAID LET'S SICK THE DOGS ON THEL, THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NOT PROFESSIONAL. THAT INDICATES SOMETHING --
04:16:16 McCaskill, Claire BUT IT DID HAPPEN.
04:16:18 Beaver, Diane IT DID NOT HAPPEN, MA'AM.
04:16:19 McCaskill, Claire DOGS WERE USED WITH NAKED PEOPLE.
04:16:23 Beaver, Diane DOGS -- WELL, IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT, I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT EVER HAPPENED AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
04:16:29 McCaskill, Claire I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GUANTANAMO BAY. I'M TALKING ABOUT WITHIN OUR MILITARY. IT HAPPENED.
04:16:35 Beaver, Diane MY EXPERIENCE IS GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. I CAN'T COMMENT ON HOW IT CAME TO BE ON --
04:16:41 McCaskill, Claire MS. DALTON, CAN YOU COMMENT HOW IT HAPPENED?
04:16:44 Dalton, Jane NO, SENATOR. THOSE TECHNIQUES WERE APPROVED FOR GUANTANAMO BAY AND GUANTANAMO BAY ONLY. THEY DID NOT INVOLVE NUDITY. THEY DID NOT INVOLVE --
04:16:54 McCaskill, Claire YOU SAY IT DOESN'T INVOLVE NUDITY NUDITY.
04:16:58 Unidentified Speaker MAY THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO FINISH HER ANSWER BEFORE THE QUESTION COMES AGAIN?
04:17:01 McCaskill, Claire I APOLOGIZE. CONTINUE.
04:17:03 Dalton, Jane THE TECHNIQUES DID NOT INVOLVE NUDITY, THEY DID NOT INVOLVE SICKING SNARLING DOGS ON DETAINEES.
04:17:09 McCaskill, Claire ALL RIGHT. REMOVAL OF CLOTHING. NOW, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE SAFEGUARDS, MS. DALTON, WITH -- WITH -- AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU HAD, DID ANYBODY TALK ABOUT THE WORD ALL, NOT ALLOWED. THAT REMOVAL OF CLOTHING -- IF I SAW REMOVAL OF CLOTHING AND I WAS TRYING TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF A DETAINEE, THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT SAYS REMOVAL OF SOME CLOTHING. IT SAYS REMOVAL OF CLOTHING. HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW FROM THAT -- FROM THAT GUIDANCE THAT NUDITY WAS NOT ALLOWED?
04:17:41 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THAT WAS ONE OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH GUANTANAMO, WITH GENERAL MILLER AND WITH OTHERS CONCERNED THESE TECHNIQUE TECHNIQUES. I SPECIFICALLY RECALL THAT WE HAD DISCUSHES ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND GENERAL -- THE PEOPLE I SPOKE WITH AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WAS GENERAL MILLER SAID IT DID NOT INVOLVE NUDITY.
04:18:02 McCaskill, Claire WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS AS A LEGAL ANALYSIS, AS A LAWYER, THAT WOULD TELL YOU THAT NUDITY IS PROHIBITED. IT SAYS REMOVAL OF CLOTHING. IT DOESN'T SAY REMOVAL OF SOME CLOTHING. IT JUST SAYS REMOVAL OF CLOTHING. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS A SAFEGUARD. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS CONCEPT I TALKED ABOUT WITH THE LAST PANEL, ADVANCED IMMUNITY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONCEPT IN THE LAW, MS. DALTON, CONCERNING IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE?
04:18:30 Dalton, Jane I'M NOT.
04:18:33 McCaskill, Claire AND DID YOU READ THAT PHRASE IN BEAVER'S LEGAL OPINION?
04:18:36 Dalton, Jane I DID.
04:18:38 McCaskill, Claire AND DID IT JUMP OUT AT YOU?
04:18:40 Dalton, Jane IT WAS ONE OF THE -- YES, SENATOR, IT DID. IT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I THOUGHT WAS NOT ACCURATE OR CORRECT.
04:18:47 McCaskill, Claire DID IT CONCERN YOU THAT A LEGAL OPINION THAT PEOPLE WERE RELYING ON CONTAINED A CONCEPT THAT ON ITS FACE WOULD BE ILLEGAL? WHICH IT WOULD BE, TO GIVE SOMEBODY IMMUNITY IN ADVANCE?
04:19:02 Dalton, Jane NOR, THAT'S WHY -- THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHY GENERAL BEAVER AND HILL ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW. THAT'S WHY WE, I BELIEVE, THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE ADDITIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW AT THE JOINT CHIEFS OR AT THE OSD GENERAL COUNSEL LEVEL.
04:19:19 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. YOUR OPINION -- AND BY THE WAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER, I FEEL FOR YOU TODAY. I THINK THIS IS HARD. AND I THINK YOU'RE A GOOD AMERICAN. AND I THINK THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO SOMETHING. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT HAPPENED. MY JOB IS TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND TRY TO MAKE SURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. I'M READING FROM YOUR LEGAL MEMO WHERE YOU SAY THE PROPOSED STRATEGIES DO NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW. DO YOU STILL STAND BY THAT OPINION?
04:19:48 Beaver, Diane AT THE TIME I WROTE THAT OPINION, THE LAW WAS SUCH THAT I BELIEVED THAT THE LAW ALLOWED A LOT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT POLICY. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LAW AT THAT TIME WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT APPLYING. AND IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS' OPINION WHEN YOU MENTION HOODS, EVEN THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS WOULD TELL YOU THAT -- I'M NOTED A VAKTING ANYTHING. I'M TELLING YOU HOODS ARE
04:20:13 McCaskill, Claire OKAY.
04:20:14 Beaver, Diane EVEN IN DECISIONS BY THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS, WHICH I LOOKED AT, FOR EXAMPLE, HOODING BY ITSELF IS -- IS ALLOWED AND IS NOT CRUEL AND IT ALSO IS NOT TORTURE. SO I TRIED TO WEIGH ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN, AND THAT I MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS AND I MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES. I TIDANT THINK OF MANY OF THE THINGS THAT I LATER SAW IN THE OPINION -- THE 50-PAGE OPINION WRITTEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO I WAS CONFIDENT THAT IF THIS GOT OFF THE ISLAND AND THAT IT WENT TO A COMMAND LIKE SOUTHCOM WHERE IT COULD BE LOOKED AT MY PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE INTERROGATION THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ANOTHER ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THAT THE MIGHT POLICY DECISION WOULD BE MADE. ON THE MILITARY JUSTICE POINT, I DID NOT ARTFULLY CRAFT THAT SECTION. THAT'S THE ONLY PART OF MY OPINION THAT I REGRET. I WAS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT MY EXTREME CONCERN FOR THE MILITARY PERSONNEL UNDER THE COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL MILLER THAT IF TECHNIQUES WEREN'T LAWFUL, THAT MILITARY POLICE PERSONNEL IN PARTICULAR COULD FIND THEMSELVES MAYBE BE PROSECUTED LATER. AND SO I DID NOT DRAFT THAT VERY WELL. AND I ADMIT THAT. BUT FOR ME IT WAS A RED FLAG TO PEOPLE LIKE CAPTAIN DALTON AT THE TIME TO SAY, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MILITARY PERSONNEL. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, COLONEL SUPERVILLE NEVER RESPONDED SO I NEVER GOT FEEDBACK UNTIL THE --
04:21:57 McCaskill, Claire NO, I GET WHAT HAPPENED HERE. YOU -- YOU FELT YOU WERE AT THE BOTTOM AND YOU NEEDED TO MOVE IT OFF THE ISLAND AND SOMEBODY, I THINK YOU SAID, IN A CALM AND RATIONAL WAY QUASI-GOING TO LOOK IT. THE SCARY THING TO ME IS THAT YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON IT AS THE LAWYER WHO WAS ASKED TO GIVE A LEGAL OPINION, AND THEN, OF COURSE, EVERYONE WANTED TO GLOM ON YOUR OPINION. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE HEAT IF YOU'D ALREADY DONE IT FOR THEM? IF I CAN BEFORE I KNOW MY TIME IS UP, BUT LET ME JUST FINISH THIS POINT. YOU HAVE SAID IN YOUR STATEMENT, YOU HAVE SAID IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE STAFF THAT YOU DIDN'T FEEL PRESSURE FROM ANYONE.
04:22:34 Beaver, Diane I DID NOT, MA'AM.
04:22:35 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. YOU SAID IN DWROUR -- YOUR MEMO THAT "AGREE THAT PROPOSED STRATEGIES DO NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW." WHO WERE YOU AGREEING WITH?
04:22:56 Beaver, Diane I'M NOT SURE. IT WAS MY OPINION. I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL THAT PHRASE. I'M SORRY.
04:23:02 McCaskill, Claire WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. YOU WROTE" I HAVE REVIEWED THE MEMORANDUM AND I AGREE THAT THE PROPOSED STRATEGIES DO NOT VIOLATE A PROPOSAL FEDERAL LAW."
04:23:14 Beaver, Diane THAT WAS MY PERSONAL OPINION. MY OPINION IS THAT IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE LAW. AND THAT'S WITH -- I HAD BILL -- BUILT-IN CONDITIONS WITH SAFEGUARDS. WITH MEDICAL INVOLVEMENT AND SO FORTH AND SO IT WAS NOT A BLANK CHECK. IF WE DID THIS PROFESSIONALLY, THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE, THERE WERE SAFEGUARDS, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ABUSES. AND BECAUSE INTERROGATION IS ALWAYS THE GRAY AREA, YOU -- UNLIKE WHAT MR. MORA SAYS, THERE WEREN'T SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF AN INTERROGATION THAT AHEAD OF TIME YOU CAN SAY WHEN IT COMES TO FOUR DAYS, I DON'T KNOW. ANYWAY, AND SO I KNEW THAT IF YOU WOULD DO THESE REVIEWS AND HAVE THESE SIF GUARDS IN PLACE FOR THESE INTERROGATIONS THAT THE LAW WOULD BE MET. AND I FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT, AND I BELIEVED IN MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE LAW TO BE VIOLATED OR DETAINEES TO BE HARMED. AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT TODAY. THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE LAW AT GITMO, DESPITE WHAT OTHERS MAY BELIEVE. DETAINEES WERE BEATING TO DEATH IN AFGHANISTAN. THAT HAPPENED IN DECEMBER BEFORE THERE WAS TIME TO GET SOMETHING
04:24:26 McCaskill, Claire BUT IT'S A --
04:24:29 Beaver, Diane AND DETAINEES WERE BEATEN TO DEATH. IT'S MORE THAN JUST -- IT'S MORE THAN JUST WHAT --
04:24:34 McCaskill, Claire YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, IT'S A SAD DAY IN THIS HEARING ROOM WHEN WE SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT THAT BAD. AT LEAST THEY WEREN'T BEATEN TO DEATH.
04:24:41 Beaver, Diane I DIDN'T SAY THAT, MA'AM.
04:24:43 McCaskill, Claire WELL, IT SOUNDED THAT WAY.
04:24:45 Beaver, Diane DETAINEES WERE NOT ABUSED. THEY WERE TREATED HUMANELY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
04:24:50 McCaskill, Claire WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO -- AND MY TIME IS UP AND I'LL WAIT FOR MY NEXT ROUND. MR. CHAIRMAN.
04:24:54 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. SENATOR GRAHAM?
04:24:58 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU. COLONEL BEAVER, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SCHMIDT FURLOUGH REPORT FOUND THAT IN OCTOBER 2002 THAT MILITARY WORKING DOGS WERE USED AS PART OF AN INTERROGATION OF A HIGH-VALUE TARGET AND THE DOG WAS BROUGHT INTO THE ROOM, DIRECTED TO GROWL, BARK, AND THOUGH THE TEETH AT THE DETAINEE. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:25:21 Beaver, Diane I ONLY HEARD THAT LATER. I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT AT THE TIME. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE OF THE DOGSES, THEY WERE BOMB DOGS. THEY WERE NOT PROTECTION DOGS. BY ROAMING THE PERIMETER --
04:25:31 Graham, Lindsey WHEN DID YOU LEAVE?
04:25:33 Beaver, Diane JUNE 2003, SIR.
04:25:34 Graham, Lindsey SO THIS -- WERE YOU THERE IN OCTOBER OF 2002?
04:25:37 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR, I WAS THERE. I SAID AT THE TIME I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT HAPPENED. I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LATER.
04:25:44 Graham, Lindsey DO YOU DOUBT -- DO YOU DOUBT THAT IT HAPPENED?
04:25:47 Beaver, Diane IF AN INVESTIGATOR FOUND THAT IT HAPPENED, I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT AT THE TIME.
04:25:55 Graham, Lindsey SO WHEN YOU SAID THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN AT GUANTANAMO BAY, YOU'RE NOT RIGHT.
04:25:58 Beaver, Diane WHAT -- WHAT I SAID WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMANDER AND WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMANDER DID NOT -- DID NOT HAPPEN.
04:26:06 Graham, Lindsey WELL, WHO DID THIS?
04:26:07 Beaver, Diane I DON'T --
04:26:08 Graham, Lindsey DID SOMEBODY MAKE IT UP ON THEIR OWN?
04:26:10 Beaver, Diane I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
04:26:11 Graham, Lindsey WELL, THE REPORT FOUND THAT IT WAS PART OF AN INTERROGATION PLAN.
04:26:16 Beaver, Diane THE INTERROGATION PLAN THAT WAS WRITTEN DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE USE OF DOGS IN THAT MANNER.
04:26:21 Graham, Lindsey OKAY. THIS REPORT ALSO FOUND THAT A DETAINEE, THE SAME DETAINEE, WAS STRIP SEARCHED IN FRONT OF MALE PERSRSONL. IS THAT -- I --- H HEA T TT THATAT HAHAENED, YES, S SIR.
04:26:34 Graham, Lindsey OKAKAY. DOOU KNOWW W WHO AUTHOZEZED AT?
04:26:40 Beaver, Diane I DO NOT, KNOW.
04:26:42 Graham, Lindsey SO BASED ON THIS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, WE KNOW AT LEAST ON ONE OCCASI,, DOGS WERE USED AT GUANTANAMBABAY AND A PSOSON WAS STRIPPED NAKED, A MAN STRIPPED NAKED IN FRONT OF FEMALE PERSONNEL AT GUANTANAMO BAY. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:26:58 Beaver, Diane SIR, IF YOU -- I'VE HEARD THAT THAT'S WHAT THE SCHMIDT FURLOUGH INVESTIGATION FOUND. I'VE NOT SEEN IT FOR MYSELF. I'M JUST SAYING I TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT THAT THAT IS WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE INVESTIGATION.
04:27:13 Graham, Lindsey MR. MORA, WRAP THIS UP. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES BEING PROPOSED, YOU FELT A NEED TO SPEAK UP AND YOU DID. YOU FELT A NEED TO CONTINUE TO SPEAK UP, AND YOU DID. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:27:28 Mora, Alberto THAT'S RIGHT, SIR.
04:27:30 Graham, Lindsey AND YOU HAD A LOT OF MILITARY LAWYERS SPEAKING UP TO YOU THAT THIS IS NOT RIGHT, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THIS CREATES PROBLEMS. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:27:39 Mora, Alberto THAT'S ALSO KRETH, SENATOR.
04:27:41 Graham, Lindsey AND I THINK WE HAD 35 TECHNIQUES THAT ONE TIME. AND SOME OF YOUR CRITISISM WAS LISTENED TO, AND THE TECHNIQUES WERE RATCHETED DOWN IN TERMS OF NUMBER. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:27:51 Mora, Alberto I'M NOT SURE ABOUT HOW IT ENDED UP, SENATOR. BUT IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE WORKING GROUP REPORTS --
04:27:55 Graham, Lindsey YES. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR LATER ON. WE HAD A -- A LIST OF TECHNIQUES THAT RUMSFELD SIGNED OFF ON. THEN YOU HAD RUSHBACK. AND YOU WERE PART OF THE PUSHBACK. THEN THEY REEVALUATED THESE TECHNIQUES AND ADMIRAL DALTON, A NEW GROUP CAME OUT. THAT'S WHERE THE JOINT CHIEFS AND OTHERS SAID, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS THING AGAIN, AND THEY
04:28:16 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR.
04:28:19 Graham, Lindsey AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WERE NEVER INVOLVED IN ANY FINAL APPROVAL OF THE NEW TECHNIQUES. THAT YOU WERE SORT OF SHUT OUT.
04:28:26 Mora, Alberto THAT'S CORRECT. WE WERE ALL ENGAGED IN THE SO-CALLED WORKING GROUP PROCESS. AND IT WAS -- THE WORKING GROUP WAS GENERATING A DRAFT THAT WAS TO BE ISSUED ON WHEN HALF OF ALL OF THE SERVICES. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I THOUGHT THAT THE DRAFT WAS NEVER FINALIZED. ALTHOUGH I LEARNEDED LATER THAT THE DRAFT WAS FINALIZED. YES YES, I WAS NOT PART OF THE FINAL APPROVAL.
04:28:49 Graham, Lindsey COLONEL BEAVER, DO YOU EVER RECALL GENERAL MILLER GOING FROM GUANTANAMO BAY TO IRAQ AT THE INVITATION OF GENERAL SANCHEZ?
04:28:59 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR. AFTER I LEFT GITMO HE ASKED ME TO TRAVEL WITH HIM TO IRAQ IN SEPTEMBER OF 2003.
04:29:06 Graham, Lindsey NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND HIS TESTIMONY, HE WENT THERE TO -- SENT -- GENERAL SANCHEZ SAID WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IEDs. IS THAT THE NATURE OF THE VISIT?
04:29:19 Beaver, Diane YES. THEY HAD A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS FROM THE USE OF THEIR CLASSIFIED NETWORK SYSTEMS TO JUST BASIC INTERROGATION. AND ALSO THE -- THE GENERAL WAS HAVING DIFFICULTIES JUST IN THE -- JUST IN DETAINING IRAQIS. SEPARATE FROM INTERROGATION. SO SOME MILITARY POLICE EXPERTS WERE BROUGHT ALONG.
04:29:44 Graham, Lindsey WAS THERE ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GENERAL MILLER OR YOURSELF TO PEOPLE IN IRAQ THAT ARABS ARE AFRAID OF DOGS AND ONE WAY TO GET INFORMATION IS TO USE DOGS OR TO HUMILIATE THEM BY TAKING THEIR CLOTHES OFF IN FRONT OF WOMEN?
04:30:01 Beaver, Diane I DON'T RECALL BEING IN A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK -- THAT THAT WAS DISCUSSED. AT ALL.
04:30:10 Graham, Lindsey WHAT DID YOU TELL THE PEOPLE? IN IRAQ TO DO?
04:30:13 Beaver, Diane I HAD DFRTION CONVERSATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF THE LAWYERS. JOURNAL WARREN ON DOWN. ABOUT A NUMBER OF -- IF YOU WANT TO SAY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. NOT JUST -- I MEAN, NOT JUST INTERROGATION INTERROGATION, BUT EVEN DETENTION. I WAS APPALLED AT HOW DETAINEES WERE BEING HELD AT A CORE HOLDING AREA. THE CONDITIONS WERE SO SEVERE AND SO DISGUSTING THAT IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS WERE DETAINING PEOPLE IN THAT MANNER. AND GENERAL MILLER WAS SO DISGUSTED, HE CALLED UP GENERAL SANCHEZ TO GET THIS CORRECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
04:30:54 Graham, Lindsey DO YOU -- THANK YOU. DO YOU THINK IT'S AN ACCIDENT THAT THE TECHNIQUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN GUANTANAMO BAY ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION AND THAT'S THE USE OF DOGS AND THE STRIPPING DOWN OF A DETAINEE IN FRONT OF FEMALE PERSONNEL, WOUND UP MIGRATING TO IRAQ?
04:31:12 Beaver, Diane I CAN SAY I WAS CERTAINLY SURPRISED WHEN I SAW CAPTAIN WOOD IN IRAQ WHO HAD BEEN THE M.I. COMMANDER WHEN THE TWO DETAINEES WERE BEATEN TO DEATH. AND I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE HER THERE. SO THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT WENT FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ. SHE SHOWED ME AN S.O.P. THAT CONTAINED TECHNIQUES THAT SHE SAID THE LAWYERS HAD APPROVED. AND SO I WENT UP TO LEGAL CHAIN OF MARK WARREN'S TO SEE WHO HAD APPROVED THESE BECAUSE I KNEW IN A GENEVA SETTING IT WAS A PROBLEM, AND I BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF COLONEL WARREN.
04:31:51 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU.
04:31:54 Levin, Carl MR. MORA, YOU'VE HEARD WHAT HAPPENED AT GUANTANAMO, THAT IT DID NOT CONSTITUTION ABUSE OF DETAINEES. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
04:32:09 Mora, Alberto SIR, I THINK ABUSE ACURED AND POTENTIALLY EVEN TORTURE OF.
04:32:12 Levin, Carl IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT CONSTITUTED ABUSE? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT HE SAID WAS OKAY, THOSE CATEGORY TWO AND SOME OF THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES THAT HE APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2nd, IN YOUR JUDGMENT WERE THOSE ABUSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER GENEVA OR OTHER LAW?
04:32:34 Mora, Alberto IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE TECHNIQUES WOULD BE APPLIED.
04:32:39 Levin, Carl JUST HOW BOUT NAKEDNESS? NUDITY? IS THAT PERMITTED?
04:32:42 Mora, Alberto I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
04:32:45 Levin, Carl HOW BOUT USE OF DOGS TO INDUCE STRESS?
04:32:47 Mora, Alberto IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER GENEVA.
04:32:49 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. NOW, ADMIRAL DALTON, I THINK THAT YOU SAID THAT THE -- I BELIEVE THAT YOU SAID THAT PART OF THE REASON THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD TO -- THAT WAS THE REASON WHY YOU WERE TOLD TO STOP YOUR LEGAL REVIEW WAS BECAUSE MR. HAINES DID NOT WANT THE SERVICES' CRITICAL COMMENTS DISSEMINATED. IS THAT CORRECT? SENATOR, I DON'T RECALL IF THOSE WERE MY EXACT WORDS. I -- I BELIEVE THAT --
04:33:21 Levin, Carl IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS?
04:33:23 Dalton, Jane I BELIEVE THAT -- I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE HAINES DID NOT WANT BROUGHT-BASED DISKUGS OF THIS TOPIC AND THESE ISSUES AND DISSEMINATION OF VARIOUS MEMOS AND MEMORANDUM AND THAT SORT OF THING.
04:33:38 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU SEE THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE VARIOUS SERVICES OBJECTING TO THESE TECHNIQUES? DID YOU READ THOSE MEMORANDUMS?
04:33:51 Dalton, Jane YES.
04:33:53 Levin, Carl THOSE MEMORANDUM CAME BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON DECEMBER 2nd. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:33:59 Dalton, Jane THAT'S CORRECT.
04:34:00 Levin, Carl BOSS I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS NEW HERE THIS MORNING. IS THAT THE PROTESTS, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE MILITARY, THE JAG OFFICERS IN THE SERVICES CAME BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE DECEMBER 2nd, 2002, MEMORANDUM. IS THAT CORRECT? IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THAT TASK FORCE WAS APPOINTED LATER ON, THERE WERE OBJECTIONS. MR. MORA WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE. BUT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2nd, PRIOR TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SIGNING THAT CATEGORY TWO AND SOME CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES WERE GOING TO BE AUTHORIZED, THE MILITARY JAG OFFICERS AND THE MILITARY LAWYERS OBJECTED STRONGLY TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM GITMO. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:34:51 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THE MEMOS WERE NOT ALL WRITTEN BY JAG OFFICERS. THEY CAME FROM THE STAFF PLANNERS GENERALLY WITH INPUT FROM THE JAG OFFICERS.
04:35:00 Levin, Carl IT CAME FROM THE SERVICES?
04:35:02 Dalton, Jane YES, SENATOR. AND THEY -- WHILE THEY RAISED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT USE OF PARTICULARLY THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES, THEY ALSO IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR VALUABLE
04:35:12 Levin, Carl OF COURSE.
04:35:13 Dalton, Jane AND SUGGESTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE FURTHER LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEWS.
04:35:17 Levin, Carl OF COURSE. AND THAT LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW YOU WERE UNDERTAKING UNTIL YOU
04:35:22 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
04:35:24 Levin, Carl SO THAT DIDN'T OCCUR THE WAY THEY RECOMMENDED?
04:35:28 Dalton, Jane THE BROAD-BASED REAL AND POLICY REVIEWS SUCH AS TOOK PLACE LATER DID NOT OCCUR.
04:35:33 Levin, Carl AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TOLD YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO UNTIL YOU WERE STOPPED?
04:35:37 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THAT'S WHAT I TOOK UPON MYSELF TO DO.
04:35:40 Levin, Carl WEREN'T YOU ASKED TO GIVE A LEGAL ANALYSIS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS?
04:35:48 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THAT WAS A PART OF MY JOB. I DIDN'T HAVE TO BE ASKED. I UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR A LEGAL AND POLICY REVIEW AND I IFISHIATED SUCH.
04:35:58 Levin, Carl LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE OBJECTIONS FROM THE ARMY. ARMY INTERPOSES SIGNIFICANT POLICY AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS REGARDING MOST OF CATEGORY TWO. NOT JUST CATEGORY THREE. CATEGORY TWO AND ALL OF CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES PROPOSED. THE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL LAW DIVISION OF THE ARMY AND THE CHIEF SAID THAT THE STREZ POSITIONS, DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT AND USE OF PHOBIAS TO INDUCE STRESS CROSSES THE LINE OF HUMANE TREATMENT AND WILL LIKELY BE CONSIDERED MALTREATMENT UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND MAY HIGHLIGHT THE TORTURE STATUTE. DOES THAT TROUBLE YOU WHEN YOU READ THAT? WERE YOU TROUBLED WHEN YOU READ THAT?
04:36:44 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, YES, SENATOR. I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE CONCERNED. ABSOLUTELY.
04:36:47 Levin, Carl I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER YOU WERE TROUBLED.
04:36:53 Dalton, Jane I'M NOT SURE --
04:36:55 Levin, Carl WERE YOU TROUBLED THAT THEY -- THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES WHICH IN THE JUDGMENT OF LAWYERS AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE MILITARY SAID THAT -- IN THEIR JUDGMENT THAT -- NOW THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY'S INTERNATIONAL LAW DIVISION STRESSED POSITIONS, USE OF PHOBIAS TO INDUCE ADDRESS WOULD BE CONSIDERED MALTREATMENT UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE. WERE YOU TROUBLED THAT YOU WERE BEING REQUESTED --
04:37:28 Dalton, Jane SENATOR --
04:37:30 Levin, Carl THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WAS BEING REQUESTED TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IN THE JUDGMENT OF THAT CHIEF OF THE ARMY'S INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL DIVISION WOULD DO THAT. WAS THAT TROUBLING TO YOU? DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN?
04:37:42 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THOSE COMMENTS WERE MADE BY THE -- BY THE ARMY. IN THIS CASE, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW DIVISION WITHOUT A COMPLETE ANALYSIS BEING DONE. IT WAS THE INITIAL RESPONSE FROM THE SERVICE THAT OCCURRED, THAT CAME TO THE JOINT STAFF WITHIN TWO OR THREE OR FOUR DAYS AFTER
04:38:02 Dalton, Jane WENT.
04:38:06 Dalton, Jane IT WAS CERTAINLY OF CONCERN. WHEN WE SAW THE REQUEST COME IN, WE HAD CONCERNS.
04:38:10 Levin, Carl OKAY.
04:38:11 Dalton, Jane HOWEVER, I FELT THAT WE OWED IT TO THE COMBATANT COMMANDER TO DO A FULL AND COMPLETE REVIEW AND NOT TO SIMPLY TURN AROUND AND DENY THE REQUEST.
04:38:19 Levin, Carl OF COURSE.
04:38:21 Dalton, Jane THE INITIAL RESPONSES FROM THE SERVICES INDICATED THAT THERE WERE CONCERNED AND THAT'S WHAT I TOOK THEM FOR.
04:38:28 Levin, Carl AND YOU WERE STOPPED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT REVIEW. IS THAT CORRECT?
04:38:31 Dalton, Jane I WAS STOPPED FROM --
04:38:33 Levin, Carl THE REVIEW YOU WERE CONDUCTING, YOU WERE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REVIEW YOU WERE CONDUCTING.
04:38:40 Dalton, Jane OF COORDINATING WITH THE SERVICES.
04:38:42 Levin, Carl THAT'S THE REVIEW YOU WERE CONDUCTING?
04:38:44 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
04:38:45 Levin, Carl AND YOU WERE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE? OR WAS IT THE BEGINNING? YOU WERE STOPPED DURING THAT REVIEW FROM FINISHING IT. ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
04:38:52 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
04:38:53 Levin, Carl WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO SAY YES IF YOU WERE?
04:39:01 Dalton, Jane BECAUSE I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT I WAS STOPPED FROM DOING WAS ENGAGING IN THE -- IN A BROAD AND OPEN DISCUSSION WITH ALL OF THE SERVICES. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I COMPLETELY DIVORCED MYSELF FROM THE PROCESS. I CONTINUED TO WORK WITH MR. HAINES AND HIS OFFICE. MY STAFF CONTINUED TO WORK WITH MR. HAINES.
04:39:24 Levin, Carl YOUER WITH -- YOU WERE STOPPED FROM DOING WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BE DOING. HOUSE THAT?
04:39:30 Dalton, Jane I WAS STOPPED FROM CONDUCTING THE REVIEW.
04:39:33 Levin, Carl THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS AN APPROPRIATE REVIEW?
04:39:35 Dalton, Jane YES, SIR.
04:39:41 Levin, Carl OKAY. NOW, IN TERMS OF THE DOG THAT WAS THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE THE DOG -- I THINK IT WAS YOU, ADMIRAL, THAT SAID IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DOG. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF A DOG? I THINK IT WAS YOU WHO SAID IT WASN'T TO SCARE. OR WAS THAT YOU, COLONEL BEAVER?
04:40:12 Beaver, Diane WELL, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE AT GITMO, WHAT WAS -- IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT -- THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DOG, IT COULD BE USED AS PERIMETER SECURITY, WHICH WOULD BE FINE. AND THAT IF THAT UNSETTLED THE DETAINEE THEN IT WOULD WORK A DUAL PURPOSE BECAUSE PART OF INTERROGATION IS TO KEEP YOU UNSETTLED. WHEN YOU PLAYED THE MENTAL CHESS GAME. WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THE DOG BECAUSE I AM A FORMER MILITARY POLICE OFFICER BEFORE I WAS AN ATTORNEY, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T TAKE DOGS INTO A DETENTION CELL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF CELL OR WHATEVER. AND I WAS ASSURED THAT THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. I FOUND OUT AFTER I LEFT GUANTANAMO THAT IT HAD HAPPENED ON ONE OCCASION. I WAS IN AWARE OF THAT AT THE TIME.
04:41:00 Levin, Carl COLONEL, WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT DOG TO INDUCE STRESS ON THE PART OF DETAINEES?
04:41:06 Beaver, Diane IT WAS TO -- WELL, IF THE DETAINEE WAS ACTUALLY AFRAID OF A DOG, BY PATROLLING THE PERIMETER, IF THAT KEPT THE DETAINEE OFF-BALANCE OR UNSETTLED, THEN THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF IT. I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT HE WAS AFRAID OF A DOG.
04:41:24 Levin, Carl WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DOG BEING BROUGHT THERE TO INDUCE STRESS? IT'S A VERY DIRECT QUESTION.
04:41:32 Beaver, Diane I'D SAY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
04:41:35 Levin, Carl HOW ABOUT THE WORDS OF THE REQUEST? USING DETAINEES' INDIVIDUAL PHOBIAS SUCH AS FEAR OF DOGS TO INDUCE STRESS. THAT WAS THE REQUEST. THAT YOU APPROVED.
04:41:46 Beaver, Diane RIGHT.
04:41:47 Levin, Carl SO IT WASN'T IF --
04:41:48 Beaver, Diane WELL --
04:41:50 Levin, Carl IF THE DETAINEE DID SOMETHING OR THE PERIMETER WALK DID SOMETHING. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE STATED IN THE REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVED.
04:41:57 Beaver, Diane I'M NOT DISAGREEING, SIR.
04:41:58 Levin, Carl IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE.
04:41:59 Beaver, Diane OH, SORRY. I'M NOT DISAGREEING.
04:42:05 Levin, Carl LAST QUESTION. ADMIRAL DALTON, WAS IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT MR. HAINES WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE SERVICES HAD REAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS REQUEST? BEFORE HE RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT THAT BE SIGNED?
04:42:22 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT MY STAFF BRIEFED HIS STAFF ON THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO -- IN THE -- IN THE MEMOS FROM THE SERVICES AND THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THOSE CONCERNS. NOW, AGAIN, THOSE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED VERY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF KNOWING WHAT THE SAFEGUARDS WOULD BE, WHAT THE OVERSIGHT WOULD BE. SO I CANNOT SAY WHAT THE SERVICES' OPINIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY HAD THE SAME KNOWLEDGE THAT MR. HAINES AND THE REST OF US HAD AFTER THE PROSHAD GONE THROUGH. SO I --
04:42:56 Levin, Carl THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION, WAS IT? WHAT THEIR OPINIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN IF. MY QUESTION WAS WAS MR. HAINES AWARE OF THE OPINIONS OF THE SERVICES? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
04:43:07 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, I BELIEVE HE WAS AWARE THAT THE SERVICES HAD CONCERNS, YES.
04:43:11 Levin, Carl AND WAS AWARE OF THOSE LETTERS? DID YOU BRIEF HIS STAFF?
04:43:16 Dalton, Jane MY STAFF BRIEFED HIS STAFF.
04:43:17 Levin, Carl ON THOSE LETTERS?
04:43:18 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. SENATOR McCASKILL?
04:43:22 McCaskill, Claire BEFORE YOU WROTE YOUR LEGAL OPINION STATING THAT ALL OF THESE TECHNIQUES, THE TECHNIQUES THAT WE'VE REFERENCED, ALL OF ONE, ALL OF TWO AND SOME OF THREE, WERE LEGAL UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW, YOU ATTENDED A METING WHERE THERE WAS A STRATEGY MEETING ON COUNTER RESISTANCE. AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THAT MEETING INCLUDING THE CIA LAWYER AND THE CHIEF OF INTERROGATION CONTROL. MR. DAVE BECKER. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING?
04:43:55 Beaver, Diane THESE MEETINGS WERE MINE. I STARTED THEM AND I THINK IT WAS LATE AUGUST WHEN I BECAME AWARE THAT THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL WANTED -- WERE CONSIDERED REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TECHNIQUES. I THOUGHT IT BEST IF I HELD THE MEETINGS, BRAIN STORMING SESSIONS, AND INVITED EVERYONE INCLUDING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, THAT THERE WOULD BE A MORE OPEN DISCUSSION AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE. SO THAT WAS A REGULARLY-SCHEDULED MEETING THAT MR. FREDMAN, WHO JUST HAPPENED TO COME DOWN TO THE ISLAND THAT DAY, WAS THERE FOR. SO IT WASN'T HELD FOR HIM. I WAS A MEETING THAT I HAD -- I SCHEDULED THOSE MEETINGS AND IVITED EVERYONE.
04:44:38 McCaskill, Claire SO THE CIA LAWYER WAS JUST INVITED IN FOR THAT MEETING THAT WAS ALREADY PLANNED.
04:44:43 Beaver, Diane YES. THAT'S HOW I RECALL IT.
04:44:44 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. AND I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE NOTES OF THIS MEETING. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHETHER YOU THINK THAT THIS RECOLLECTION OF WHAT WAS SAID IS FLAT WRONG AND JUST ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU DENY THAT THESE THINGS WERE SAID IN FRONT OF YOU OR THAT YOU SAID THESE THINGS. THE FIRST THING IS ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WE NEED TO CURB THE HARSHER OPERATIONS WHEN THE RED CROSS IS AROUND. IT'S BETTER NOT TO EXPOSE THEM TO ANY CONTROVERSIAL TECHNIQUES. WE MUST HAVE SUPPORT OF THE D.O.D.
04:45:27 Beaver, Diane MR. PRYOR, I THINK, SECOND A SIMILAR QUESTION WHEN YOU WERE ABSENT. WHAT I CAN SAY IS I DO NOT RECALL OF COURSE SIX YEARS LATER ANYTHING THAT I ACTUALLY SAID IN THAT MEETING. WHAT I DO -- BECAUSE I -- I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY DO. WHAT I BELIEVE THAT I THINK I WOULD HAVE SAID IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE CONDUCTING AN INTERROGATION, IF THE ICRC IS ON THE ISLAND AND THEY WANT TO SEE A PARTICULAR DETAINEE, YOU CAN'T DISRUPT THE INTERROGATION FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IT CAUSE CONTROVERSY --
04:46:02 McCaskill, Claire WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS SAYS.
04:46:05 Beaver, Diane I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID. I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING IN THAT MANNER BECAUSE I WORKED WITH THE ICRC VERY CLOSELY AND WE HAD AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP. AND QUL HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY DO. BUT THEY CAME IN SIX-WEEK CYCLES. THEY MIGHT BE THERE FOR SIX WEEKS AND THEN GONE FOR SIX WEEKS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW. ALL I CAN GUESS IS I MIGHT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO WHEN THEY'RE NOT THERE, YOU WOULD BE DOING YOUR MORE AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEMS AND THEN WHEN THEY COME BACK, IF THEY WANTED TO SEE THAT DETAINEE, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO SEE THE DETAINEE.
04:46:43 McCaskill, Claire WHY WOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM OF THEM EVER SEEING THE DETAINEE?
04:46:47 Beaver, Diane WHEN YOU'RE CONDUCTING AN INTERROGATION, YOU CAN'T DISRUPT IT.
04:46:51 McCaskill, Claire WHETHER IT'S HARSH OR NOT?
04:46:52 Beaver, Diane CORRECT.
04:46:54 McCaskill, Claire THEN WHY WOULD YOU DELINEATE HARSH? WHY WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF IT WAS HOORSH?
04:46:59 Beaver, Diane I'M JUST USING IT IN CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION. YES, THERE WERE MANY TIMES WHEN DETAINEES WERE UNDERGOING -- LIKE THEY'D JUST ARRIVED ON THE ISLAND AND THE ICRC WAS TOLD THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM FOR TWO WEEKS. THERE WERE MANY ENGAGEMENTS LIKE THAT WHERE WE EXPLAINED WHY THEY COULD OR COULD NOT SEE A DETAINEE.
04:47:17 McCaskill, Claire THE -- THE NOTES -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR WHO WROTE THE NOTES. THEY WERE WRITTEN BY THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE.
04:47:25 Beaver, Diane THAT'S KRETH, MA'AM.
04:47:26 McCaskill, Claire OF D.O.D.
04:47:28 Beaver, Diane YES. AN EXECUTIVE AGENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
04:47:31 McCaskill, Claire SO THESE ARE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE USED TO CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TAKING NOTES AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE LELIBEL BECAUSE THEY MUST RELY ON THEM IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
04:47:42 Beaver, Diane AGAIN, I -- ALL I'M SAYING IS I DIDN'T WRITE THEM. AND SIX YEARS LATER, I CANNOT RECALL WHAT I SAID IN A MEETING.
04:47:50 McCaskill, Claire PART OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, IN FACT, IS THE ABILITY TO TAKE NOTES CAN AN EVENT SO THEY CAN RECALL LATER FOR PURPOSES OF THE INVESTIGATION WHAT HAPPENED.
04:47:59 Beaver, Diane I DON'T DISPUTE THAT.
04:48:01 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. NOW LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS SAID THERE. FRIEDMAN, THE CIA ATTORNEY, SAID THE D.O.J. HAS PROVIDED MUCH GUIDANCE ON THIS ISSUE. THE CIA IS NOT HELD TO THE SAME RULES AT THE MILITARY. PIN THE PAST WHEN THE RED CROSS HAS MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT CERTAIN DETAINEES, THE D.O.D. HAS "MOVED THEM" AWAY FROM THE ATTENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS. UPON QUESTIONING ABOUT THEIR WHEREABOUTS, THE D.O.D.'S RESPONSE HAS BEEN AT THE DETAINEES MERITS NO STATUS. THE CIA HAS EMPLOYED AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES ON A HANDFUL OF SUSPECTS SINCE 9/11. DO YOU RECALL THOSE WORDS BEING SAID THAT THERE WAS A HABIT OF MOVING THESE DETAINEES IF THE RED CROSS STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS QUESTIONS?
04:48:52 Beaver, Diane I DON'T RECALL WITH ANY KIND OF SPIS SPECIFICITY WHAT WAS SAID. I KNOW HOW WE HANDLED THESE ISSUES. IN FACT, THE LAH ENFORCEMENT FOLKS HAD CUSTODY OF ONE MAN AT THE BRIG AND THE FBI AND THE CITF AGENTS DID NOT ALLOW THE ICRC TO SPEAK TO HIM. HE WAS SEEN THROUGH THE -- THE ICRC WAS ALLOWED, IF THEY WISHED, TO GO IN AND SEE HIM IN THE BRIG, THAT HE WAS ALIVE AND WELL. THAT WAS IN THE JULY/AUGUST TIME FRAME. SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE DETAINEES, THIS PARTICULAR GENTLEMAN, ISN-63, THAT HAD BEEN OF INTEREST TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THERE HAD BEEN MANY DISCUSSIONS. SO, AGAIN, I -- I CAN'T ATTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO WHAT MR. FRIEDMAN SAID ABOUT THE CIA, BUT THE D.O.D. HAD DIFFERENT RULES REGARDING THE ICRC AND HOW WE OPERATED ON A D.O.D. INSTALLATION.
04:49:56 McCaskill, Claire ALL RIGHT. GOING FURTHER IN THE NOTES, THE CHIEF INTERROGATION CONTROL PERSON, MR. BECKER, VIDEOTAPES ARE SUBJECT TO TOO MUCH SCRUTINY IN COURT. WE DON'T WANT THE L.E.A. PEOPLE IN AGGRESSIVE SESSIONS ANYWAY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER, LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE TYPE OF INTERROGATIONS IS MORE ETHICAL AND MORAL AS OPPOSED TO LEGAL. AND THEN THIS LINE. THE VIDEOTAPING OF EVEN TOTALLY LEGAL TECHNIQUES WILL LOOK UGLY. NOW, THAT FRASZ IS PARTICULARLY TROUBLING TO ME BECAUSE INHERENT IS THAT PHRASE THAT VIDEOTAPING EVEN THE TOTALLY LEGAL ONES WOULD LOOK BAD. FOR GOD SAKES, LET'S DON'T TAPE THE ONES THAT ARE ILLEGAL.
04:50:56 Beaver, Diane FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER PARTICIPATED IN A POLICE INTERROGATION, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT WOULD MAKE ANYONE UNCOMFORTABLE. AND SO WITHOUT A CONTEXT, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION, I'M, AGAIN, ALL I'M -- I'M NOT TRYING TO BE IN MR. FREDMAN'S MIND. I'M SAYING I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A LEGAL POLICE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION THAT PEOPLE CAN BE UNCOMFORTABLE. I WOULD JUST SAY VIDEOTAPING IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS IT'S -- UNLESS YOUR MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE NEED IT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE BECAUSE WE HAD CLOSED-CIRCUIT TVs WHERE THE PEOPLE COULD WATCH THE INTEAR GAGS 24/7. SO IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO VIDEOTAPE UNLESS THERE WAS AN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSE. SO MY ONLY POINT IS THAT EVEN WHEN, YES, I MEAN, AGAIN, IF YOU'VE NEVER WITNESSED A POLICE INTERROGATION FOR HOURS AND HOURS, WHEN YOU'RE INTERVIEWING A SUSPECT, IT CAN BE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
04:51:57 McCaskill, Claire I'LL TELL YOU, I HAVE WITNESSED --
04:52:00 Beaver, Diane WELL, I'M NOT SAYING YOU PERSONAL.
04:52:02 Unidentified Speaker I'D OBJECT TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING.
04:52:04 Levin, Carl EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU FIRST OF ALL IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
04:52:09 Unidentified Speaker YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M JAMES FRIEND. I'M THE DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER. MY OBJECTION, SIR, IF I AM.
04:52:18 McCaskill, Claire CAN YOU SPEAK UP?
04:52:21 Levin, Carl CAN YOU CONSULT WITH YOUR CLIENT THERE AND THEN EITHER YOU OR HER SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. ONE OR THE OTHER. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
04:52:34 Unidentified Speaker I'D LIKE TO OBJECT TO MY CLIENT BEING ASKED ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID.
04:52:39 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST --
04:52:42 McCaskill, Claire I'D BE HAPPY TO STRAIGHTEN THE RECORD OUT.
04:52:44 Levin, Carl YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.
04:52:47 McCaskill, Claire I WAS ASKING YOU IF THESE THINGS WERE SAID IN FRONT OF YOU. IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE -- AS THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE IF THIS -- IF YOU RECALL THIS -- THESE WERE VOTES TAKEN BY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE WITHIN D.O.D. CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THIS MEETING ATTRIBUTING SOME STATEMENTS TO YOU AND SOME STATEMENTS TO MR. FREDMAN. I WAS ASKING DO YOU RECALL THOSE STATEMENTS BEING MADE? I WAS NOT SAYING -- I THINK I WAS VERY CLEAR THAT MR. FREDMAN SAID THIS. DO YOU RECALL THOSE STATEMENTS BEING MADE IN FRONT OF YOU AND -- IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE JUDGE ADVOCATE AT GUANTANAMO BAY?
04:53:28 Beaver, Diane MA'AM, THE MEETING WAS FOR NON-ATTRIBUTION PURPOSES SO THAT PEOPLE COULD SPEAK THEIR MINDS AND THAT OPINIONS NOT BE HELD AGAINST THEM IN AN ADVERSE WAY. IT WAS A BRAINSTORMING SESSION. PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT OPINIONS. I DON'T RECALL WHAT WAS SAID SIX YEARS AGO. THE PURPOSE OF THE SESSION WAS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK FREELY AND ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS, WHETHER IT BE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY, THE INTEL COMMUNITY, THE LAWYERS, THE MILITARY POLICE. AND SO THAT WE WOULD GET A GENUINE DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES. AND SO IF -- IF YOU PUT -- IF YOU RESTRICT WHAT CAN BE SAID, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE DOING THINGS PERHAPS IN DARKNESS AND YOU WON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. I WANTED PEOPLE TO HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION. AS I RECALL, WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION. BUT I CANNOT RECALL PRECISELY WHAT WAS SAID BY A PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE WERE PARTICULARLY HOSTILE TOWARDS ME AND WERE VERY UNHAPPY WITH ME THAT I WAS EVEN HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS. BUT I STILL THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO DO IT IN THE LIGHT OF DAY AND INCLUDE EVERYONE THAN TO JUST LIMIT IT TO MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL. BUT I'M SORRY. I REALLY -- I CANNOT RECALL WHAT WAS SAID SIX YEARS AGO.
04:54:52 McCaskill, Claire WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WERE INCLUDED IN THE MEETINGS. I'MTIA THEY HAVE WITNESSED, AS I HAVE, MANY, MANY, MANY INTERROGATIONS AND I'M SURE THAT'S WHY THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTES. LET ME CLOSE MY QUESTIONING BY READING INTO THE RECORD WHAT ONE OF THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE -- THE DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE SAID IN AN E-MAIL WITHIN A MONTH OF THIS MEETING IN LOOKING AT THE NOTES FROM THE MEETING. "THIS LOOKS LIKE THE KIND OF STUFF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ARE MADE OF. QUOTES FROM LIEUTENANT BEAVER GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF INPROPRIETY. COMMENTS LIKE IT'S BASICALLY SUGGEST TO PERCEPTION, IF A DETAINEE DIES YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG, AND ANY OF THE TECHNIQUES THAT LIE IN THE HARSHEST END OF THE SPECTRUM MUST BE PERFORMED BY A HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL. IT SEEMS A STRETCH BEYOND THE BONDS OF LEGAL PROPIETY. TALK OF WET TOWEL TREATMENT WOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIOUSENCE OF ANY LEGAL BODY LOOKING AT USING THE RESULTS OF THE INTEAR GAGS OR PERHAPS EVEN THE INTERROGATORS." SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERING HOW HISTORY WILL LOOK BACK AT THIS.
04:56:21 Beaver, Diane CHAIRMAN, PLEASE ONE COMMENT. I INVITED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF THEY HAD CONCERNS TO PUT THEM IN WRITING. AND PUT THEM THROUGH TO GENERAL MILLER SO THAT THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED. THEY DID NOT. I ALSO SAID IF THEY HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT VILESES OF THE LAW THAT WAS NEVER -- NOT A SINGLE FBI AGENT OR CITF TASK FORCE PERSON EVER, EVER, EVER EXCEPT ON ONE OCCASION WHERE THEY SAID DAVE BECKER PUT TAPE ON DETAINEE'S MOUTH CAME TO ME AND SAID THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THEY HAD POLICY ARGUMENTS AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTS, BUT THEY NEVER CAME TO ME AND SAID RIGHT NOW THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON, I THINK IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THIS HAS ALL BEEN YEARS LATER THROUGH E-MAILS AND HEARSAY. SO IF THEY FELT THAT WAY AT THE TIME, THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN ME THE SAME COURTESY THAT I GAVE THEM.
04:57:19 McCaskill, Claire I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.
04:57:22 Beaver, Diane THEY WENT TO MR. MORA, THAT'S FINE. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. BUT AT THE TIME I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT ANYTHING SERIOUSLY AND THEY KNEW THAT.
04:57:29 McCaskill, Claire I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. THAT'S WHY WHEN -- WHY I CALLED MR. MORA A HERO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
04:57:41 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. LOOK AT TAB 11, COLONEL BEAVER. YOU'LL FIND THERE A LETTER FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE, GIVING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTER RESISTANCE STRATEGIES.
04:57:58 Beaver, Diane IT WAS NEVER SHARE WOULD ME, CHAIRMAN.
04:58:00 Levin, Carl BUT THEY SHARED IT IN WRITING. YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO EMPLOY THAT THEY NEVER PUT IG -- IN WRITING THEIR OBJECTIONS, DID YOU?
04:58:11 Beaver, Diane THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ME ANYTHING IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE DISCUSSING IT WITH THE ARMY AND ALSO I DIDN'T KNOW MR. MORA, BUT I KNOW HIGHER HEADQUARTERS. AND I WAS TOLD BY AN ATTORNEY THAT THEIR OBJECTIONS WERE POLICY-BASED AND NOT LEGALLY-BASED.
04:58:39 Levin, Carl LET ME READ FROM THAT EXHIBIT. PERSONNEL WHO ARE AWARE OF THE USE OR ABUSE OF TECHNIQUES MAY BE EXPOSED TO LIABILITY UNDERSTOOD THE UCMJ. SOUNDS LEGAL TO ME. THIS IS WHAT THEY PROVIDED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. THIS IS WHAT THEY PROVIDED TO ADMIRAL DALTON. ADMIRAL DALTON SAID SHE SAW THIS. I MEAN, THIS IS --
04:59:02 Beaver, Diane I NEVER SAW IT.
04:59:03 Levin, Carl YOU'RE NOT -- I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SEE IT. I'M NOT ASKING IF YOU SAW IT. I'M SAYING YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THEY NEVER SET OUT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO WHAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDING IN WRITING. IT'S JUST THAT YOU SAY YOU NEVER SAW THEM?
04:59:17 Beaver, Diane WE LIVED AND WORKED TOGETHER THERE. I'M SAYING THEY DIDN'T AFFORD ME THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT I AFFORDED THEM. WHICH I --
04:59:26 Levin, Carl I'M NOT -- I'M JUST ASKING YOU A VERY DIRECT QUESTION. YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THEY DIDN'T PUT THEIR --
04:59:32 Beaver, Diane SORRY, SIR.
04:59:33 Levin, Carl NO, I'M ASKING. YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT, DID YOU?
04:59:37 Beaver, Diane UNTIL TODAY, THIS IS THE
04:59:39 Levin, Carl THAT'S FINE.
04:59:40 Beaver, Diane THANK YOU.
04:59:42 Levin, Carl IT'S JUST THAT YOU WERE NOT BROUGHT INTO THAT LOOP? YOU HAD ALREADY SENT YOUR OPINION ON THE JOINT CHIEFS HAD ASKED FOR AN OPINION IN WASHINGTON. WHAT DO THEY THINK ABOUT YOUR OPINION? THEY THEN ASKED THE SERVICES, WHAT DID THEY THINK? THIS IS A RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THE SERVICES AS TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF YOUR OPINION.
05:00:01 Beaver, Diane AND THIS IS --
05:00:03 Levin, Carl WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE -- AFTER WHAT?
05:00:05 Beaver, Diane I'M SORRY, SIR.
05:00:06 Levin, Carl IT'S AFTER WHAT?
05:00:08 Beaver, Diane NO, THIS IS AFTER DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD ON THE ISLAND.
05:00:11 Levin, Carl IT'S DATED NOVEMBER 4th, 2002, WHICH IS A MONTH TO THE DAY PRIOR TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SIGNING HIS MEMO. IS THAT CORRECT?
05:00:20 Beaver, Diane YES.
05:00:23 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. NOW, COLONEL BEAVER, AFTER THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAD APPROVED THE TECHNIQUES ON DECEMBER 2nd, DID YOU WORK WITH THE SENIOR STAFF AT GITMO TO DEVELOP THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AT TAB 16? IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK AT TAB 16.
05:00:40 Beaver, Diane NO, I DID NOT, SIR. THAT WAS DONE BY THE -- SOME OF THE FOLKS AT THE INTERROGATION CELL. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
05:00:49 Levin, Carl WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?
05:00:51 Beaver, Diane I RECALL SEEING IT WHEN THE STAFF SHOWED IT TO ME. I MIGHT HAVE RECALLED SEEING IT AT THE TIME AT GITMO. BUT I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PERSONNEL AT GITMO, THE INTELLIGENCE SIDE IN PREPARATION SHOULD THE -- SHOULD THE SECRETARY APPROVE SOMETHING, THEY WERE PREPARING AN S.O.P. SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE BEHIND THE TIME LINES. BUT THAT'S NOT AT THE DIRECTION OF GENERAL MILLER OR MYSELF.
05:01:19 Levin, Carl DID YOU HAVE COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE TO IMPLEMENT THE SECRETARY'S DECEMBER 2nd, 2002, DECISION?
05:01:28 Beaver, Diane ANYTHING THAT THEY DID THEY NEEDED TO DA -- THEY NEEDED TO HAVE A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE SO IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE LIMITS WERE AND WHAT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS, WHO TOREPORT THINGS TO. SO, YES, I'M AWARE OF THAT.
05:01:42 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THE DRAFTS THOUGH?
05:01:47 Beaver, Diane I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY I SAW THIS DRAFT OR NOT AT THE TIME. I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN IT SINCE. I KNOW WHO TED MOSS IS.
05:01:54 Levin, Carl IS IT POSSIBLE YOU SAW THIS DRAFT AT THE TIME?
05:01:57 Beaver, Diane I COULD HAVE, SIR.
05:01:59 Levin, Carl AND IF YOU COULD READ ON PAGE TWO.
05:02:01 Levin, Carl OKAY. IT SAYS THE BASIS FOR THIS DOCUMENT IS THE STANDARD OPERATING -- IT'S ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN. THE BASE FOR THIS DOCUMENT IS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE USED AT THE U.S. NAVY SERE SCHOOL IN BRUNSWICK, MAINE. DO YOU SEE THAT REFERENCE?
05:02:17 Beaver, Diane ON PAGE TWO?
05:02:20 Levin, Carl THE HEADING OF THE PAGE IS JTF. OH, THAT ARER THE FIRST PAGE.
05:02:23 Beaver, Diane I'M SORRY.
05:02:25 Levin, Carl NO, I SAID PAGE TWO. I MISLED YOU.
05:02:27 Beaver, Diane I SEE WHERE YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
05:02:30 Lieberman, Joseph SEE WHERE IT SAYS GITMO SERE.
05:02:31 Beaver, Diane RIGHT.
05:02:33 Levin, Carl SERE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE?
05:02:36 Beaver, Diane RIGHT, RIGHT. I DON'T RECALL.
05:02:41 Levin, Carl THEN YOU SEE JTF GITMO SERE INTERROGATION.
05:02:42 Beaver, Diane YES.
05:02:44 Levin, Carl AND THEN YOU SEE GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYEEING SERE CROSSED OUT, MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. IT'S THAT PAGE I'M ASKING YOU TO
05:02:51 Beaver, Diane RIGHT.
05:02:52 Levin, Carl AND THEN YOU IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE PURPOSE, WOULD YOU FOLLOW ME. THIS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE DOCUMENT PROMULGATES PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY GITMO PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN INTERROGATION OPERATIONS ON DETAINED PERSONS. THE PREMISE BEHIND THIS IS THAT THE INTERPRETATION TACTICS USED AT U.S. MILITARY SERE SCHOOLS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR USE IN REAL-WORLD INTERROGATIONS. THESE TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES ARE USED AT SERE SCHOOL TO BREAK SERE DETAINEES. THE SAME TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES CAN BE USED TO BREAK REAL DETAINEES DURING INTERROGATION OPERATIONS. THE BASIS FOR THIS DOCUMENT IS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE USED AT THE U.S. NAVY SERE SURVIVAL OF RESISTANCE AND ESCAPE SCHOOL IN MAINE. DID YOU FOLLOW ALL THAT?
05:03:43 Beaver, Diane YES, SIR.
05:03:44 Levin, Carl IS IT POSSIBLE YOU SAW THIS WHEN YOU WERE AT GUANTANAMO?
05:03:47 Beaver, Diane I CAN'T SAY. I KNOW IT CERTAINLY NEVER LEFT THE INTELLIGENCE SECTOR OR WHATEVER THEY CALLED IT THEN. I THINK IT WAS THE I.C.E. NOTHING THAT CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF GENERAL MILLER FOR APPROVAL. IT WAS A BEGINNING DRAFT, AS I RECALL, THAT TED MOSS TOOK ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE TO START DRAFTING. BUT I DON'T THINK IT EVER RECEIVED ANY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, BUT THAT'S JUST --
05:04:13 Levin, Carl DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN DRAFTING IT AT ALL?
05:04:15 Beaver, Diane NO, SIR, NOT THIS.
05:04:17 Levin, Carl DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE DRAFTS TO IMPLEMENT THAT ORDER?
05:04:24 Beaver, Diane I GAVE THEM -- AS PART OF THE S.O.P., THE LEGAL BRIEF OR THE -- THE LEGAL PIECE OF IT. THE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT. BUT THEY HAD A LIST OF THINGS THAT WERE IN THERE FROM MY LEGAL BRIEFING.
05:04:36 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT.
05:04:37 Beaver, Diane IN THEIR S.O.P.
05:04:38 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. AND YOU GAVE YOUR APPROVAL OF THAT?
05:04:42 Beaver, Diane WELL, IT'S NOT THIS S.O.P.
05:04:44 Levin, Carl IN OTHER S.O.P.s, DID YOU GIVE YOUR --
05:04:47 Beaver, Diane IT WAS A DIFFERENT S.O.P. THAT ACTUALLY LISTED THE ACTUALLY PROCEDURES THAT WERE APPROVED AND -- AND THE -- ALL OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS THAT GO INTO PREPARING AN INTERROGATION PLAN, WHO HAS TO APPROVE IT AT WHAT LEVEL AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY UP TO GENERAL MILLER. SO THAT'S THE S.O.P. THAT I RECALL.
05:05:06 Levin, Carl AND WERE THE SERE TECHNIQUES IN THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT THAT
05:05:08 Beaver, Diane NO.
05:05:09 Levin, Carl WERE THEY BASED ON THE --
05:05:12 Beaver, Diane IT WAS BASED ON THE MEMO.
05:05:15 Levin, Carl THAT INCORPORATED CATEGORY TWO AND CERTAIN CATEGORY TREE?
05:05:20 Beaver, Diane RIGHT, BUT IT WASN'T SPECIFIED AT SERE. IT'S THIS IS WHAT IS TLISZED AND THEN THERE'S WHAT HAS TO APPROVE
05:05:29 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER BEFORE THIS EVENT BEEN TOLD TO STOP ANALYZEING A REQUEST OR ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR YOUR REVIEW?
05:05:46 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS OCCASION WHERE I WAS DIRECTED THAT I COULD NOT ATTEND AGENCY MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS OF ISSUES. BUT, AGAIN, LIKE THIS TIME, I WOULD --
05:05:59 Levin, Carl LET ME JUST ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN. HAD YOU EVER BEFORE BEEN TOLD TO STOP ANALYZING A REQUEST THAT CAME UP FOR YOUR REVIEW?
05:06:08 Dalton, Jane SENATOR, NO.
05:06:12 Levin, Carl DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE JOINT STAFF HAS EVER BEEN ASKED TO STOP ANALYZING A REQUEST THAT CAME UP FOR THEIR REVIEW?
05:06:19 Dalton, Jane I DON'T KNOW, SIR.
05:06:21 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T KNOW SOME YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT --
05:06:25 Dalton, Jane I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT HAS OCCURRED.
05:06:26 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A VOTE ON. THE PANEL IS EXCUSED. THANK YOU ALL. NO, I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. MORA. THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS I MUST ASK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HEARD MY DESCRIPTION IN MY OPENING STATEMENT OF YOUR ACTIVITIES, WHICH CAME IN JANUARY, I BELIEVE, AFTER THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ENTERED HIS ORDER AND YOU -- AND YOUR EFFORTS TO GET
05:06:52 Mora, Alberto YES, SIR.
05:06:54 Mora, Alberto THAT'S ACCURATE.
05:06:56 Levin, Carl THANK YOU. NOW, ON DECEMBER -- WHEN THE SECRETARY APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2nd THE RECOMMENDATION TO -- FOR AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES FOR GITMO, HE WAS HANDED A NOTE WHICH SAID WHY IS STANDING LIMITED TO FOUR HOURS? I STAND FOR EIGHT TO TEN HOURS A DAY. WHAT IMPACT MIGHT THAT NOTE HAVE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO READ IT?
05:07:22 Mora, Alberto SENATOR, WHEN I FIRST SAW THAT NOTE, I WAS SHOCKED THAT ANY SUCH NOTE WOULD APPEAR ON THIS KIND OF DOCUMENT. I WAS REACTING AT A LITIGATOR TO SEEING A CLIENT'S COMMENT OF THIS NATURE ON A DOCUMENT. I FELT AT THE TIME THAT EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED JOLLURALY AND SECRETARY RUMSFELD HAS THAT STYLE, IT MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS A WINK AND A NOD TO GO BEHIND THE LIMITS OF THE DOCUMENT SFWH YOU SAID IN THE BEGINNING THAT ALLIED NATIONS HAVE -- GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED DURING THE OPERATION COULD BE ABUSED BY U.S. OR OTHER FORCES. NOW, IF OUR ALLIES AREN'T WILLING TO SUPPORT COMBAT OPERATIONS, THAT WOULD PUT MORE U.S. FORCES IN HARM'S WAY. IS THAT CORRECT?
05:08:12 Mora, Alberto THAT'S TRUE.
05:08:13 Levin, Carl IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OR WAS THAT YOUR FEAR?
05:08:18 Mora, Alberto SENATOR, I HAVE ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT I'D PREFER TO DISCUSS THAT IN A CLOSED SESSION RATHER THAN IN AN OPEN HEARING.
05:08:27 Levin, Carl YOU HAD AN OPINION OF THE SO-CALLED YOU MEMO THAT HAD BEEN COMMISSIONED BY MR. HAINES. HOW WOULD YOU SAY THAT -- YOU HAD -- YOU HAD MEETINGS WITH MR. YOU ABOUT THAT MEMO. WHAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HIS -- HIS DEFENSE AS OF HIS MEMO? WAS IT --
05:08:46 Mora, Alberto I ONLY HAD ONE MEETING WITH HIM, SENATOR, AND I FELT THAT THE MEMO WAS -- WAS A TRAVESTY OF THE APPLICABLE LAW AND A VERY DANGEROUS MEMO BECAUSE IT LED THE D.O.D. INTO WHAT WE SEE HERE AND WHAT THE WORKING GROUP WOULD ISSUE.
05:09:02 Levin, Carl AND YOU WERE NOT TOLD ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP'S FINAL PRODUCT? YOU WERE KIND OF LEFT OUT. HOW DID THE MEMO, IF YOU KNOW, INFLUENCE THAT FINAL WORKING GROUP REPORT?
05:09:17 Mora, Alberto THE MEMO ESSENTIALLY CREATED THE CONTOURS AND CONTENT FOR THE WORKING GROUP REPORT. SO IT WAS DISPOSITIVE OF ALL OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WERE ADDRESSED.
05:09:30 Levin, Carl SENATOR GRAHAM?
05:09:32 Graham, Lindsey LOOKING FORWARD, MR. MORA, I THINK WE NOW UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEEDED TO BRING CERTAINTY TO THIS WHOLE AREA. LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S VERY HARD TO INTERPRET THIS, THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. THEY DO MIGRATE. THEY DO GET PEOPLE CONFUSED. PEOPLE GET OVERZEALOUS SOMETIMES. THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE. DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD THINK THAT WE PASSED THE LAW OUTLAWING INHUMANE TREATMENT?
05:09:59 Mora, Alberto ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, SENATOR.
05:10:02 Levin, Carl WE'LL BE BACK AFTER THIS VOTE. IS IT 20 TO 3:00 NOW? WE'LL BEGIN AT 3:00. THE NEXT PANEL WILL BE AT 3:00.
05:10:25 THIS HEARING WILL RETURN WITH THE FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM HAINES. HE'S ACCUSED OF BEING CLOSELY INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL OF HARSH INTERROGATION TACTICS USED AT GUANTANAMO BAY.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
| [+/-] |
Transcript of Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Interrogation of Detainees in U.S. Custody |
Thursday, June 12, 2008
| [+/-] |
Army Spreads Partisan Attacks Against Obama |
At the Washington Post, Phillip Carter writes, Army Shows Its Colors:
The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To" -- named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrapup contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It's similar to the Defense Department's Early Bird -- but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.
Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias:
Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)
The link goes to a milblog called "Knee Deep in the Hooah." The author is a former Army officer whose son is serving in Iraq now. After citing a column on some curious Pentagon planning for an Obama administration, he goes on to write:
Roger that Redleg six, throwing away all ammo now and preparing to surrender ... Redleg five, out.Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches-- or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?
After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning? The article cited above also includes a Youtube link so that you can see the end for yourself in the end makers own words. Sure. This is all old news for those of us who care. But it still ticks me off anyway. So I thought to myself,"Why not share the wealth?" Now I can be ticked off in good company. Enjoy.
Mr.Hooah!, out.
And more to the point, why is the Army's official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics: "As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."
Unfortunately, the message didn't get to through to the Army.
Let's be clear: It is okay for the services to have a message. Both the Early Bird and Stand To speak for the Pentagon and the Army as institutions, and that's okay. They generally support the troops, the military, the chain of command, and the current endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing wrong with that.
And I have no objections to what Mr. Hooah wrote, besides the fact that I think it's factually wrong. He has his opinion; I have mine.
But the Stand To page is different -- and Tuesday's edition crosses the line. This isn't some citizen's blog or website. It's the in-house public affairs digest of the United States Army. It should not be amplifying partisan political attacks, nor should it be airing them at all. This appears like yet another example of the unusually cozy relationship which has developed over the last generation or so between the military and the right wing of American politics -- an unhealthy development, to say the least.
Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn't swear an oath to either political party or to their current president. Rather, they swear their fidelity to the Constitution, and the ideals it embodies, including the subordination of the military to civil authority. Adm. Mullen is right: As we enter a contentious election year, where issues of national security are likely to dominate the debate, the military needs to stay on the sidelines.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
| [+/-] |
|
The New York Post reports:
The latest Big Apple trophy being coveted by oil-rich sovereign wealth funds is the landmark Chrysler Building.
Sources say the super-rich Abu Dhabi Investment Council is negotiating an $800 million deal for a 75 percent stake in the Art Deco treasure that has defined the Midtown skyline since 1930.
The Chrysler assets would be purchased from TMW - the German arm of an Atlanta-based investment fund that's been eager to cash out of its Chrysler stake.
The deal follows last month's sale of the GM Building and three other Macklowe/Equity Portfolio properties for $3.95 billion to a group of investors including the wealth funds of Kuwait and Qatar and Boston Properties.
As part of the Chrysler deal, sources said the Abu Dhabi Investment Council would also get part of the skyscraper's signature Trylons retail prize next door.
Tishman Speyer Properties owns the remaining 25 percent stake in the Chrysler Building and operates the landmark at 405 Lexington Ave., along with the Trylons and the newer next door neighbor at 666 Third Ave.
The Trylons space also involves retail portion, which includes the Capital Grille steakhouse and a Citibank branch.
The buildings sit on land owned by Cooper Union, which leased it in a long-term arrangement to others and uses the payments to support tuition for its students.
Recently Tishman Speyer obtained a 150-year extension of the ground lease.
Sources say the deal would leave Tishman Speyer in charge of the building, with the Abu Dhabi fund essentially acting as a silent partner.
Abu Dhabi has also partnered with Tishman Speyer in other deals around the world, sources said. Since TMW and Tishman Speyer sold 666 Fifth Ave. to Kushner Companies for $1.8 billion last year, the Atlanta group began informing the real estate community that it was ready to cash out in the landmark Chrysler Center, as well.
None of the principals involved in the deal had any comment.
Boston Properties closed on its purchase of the GM Building on Monday with investment partners Kuwait and Qatar, and will complete the purchase of three other former Macklowe properties over the next few months.
Developer Harry Macklowe was forced to sell the assets after taking a personal loan on the GM Building and other family assets to raise nearly $7 billion to buy a city package of former Equity Office buildings.
The credit markets tanked right after completing that deal in July and Macklowe was unable to refinance the short-term debt causing him to sell the four buildings to Boston Properties and return the Equity portfolio to lender Deutsche Bank.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
| [+/-] |
For Clinton, Millions in Debt and Few Options |
The NY Times reports:
With her campaign now officially suspended, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confronting still another challenge: whittling down what is believed to be the largest presidential campaign debt in history.
Besides the $11.4 million of her own money that Mrs. Clinton lent her campaign, she had about $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors at the end of April, according to her most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission.
It is unclear how much debt she will ultimately report, because the campaign is still adding up the figures for May, which it must file to the commission by June 20. But Mo Elleithee, a campaign spokesman, said, “We don’t expect the debt number to look significantly different than it did on our last report.”
Other, far more affluent candidates have poured more of their own money into their presidential bids, like Mitt Romney, who spent more than $44 million in an unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination this year. His money was technically classified by his campaign as a loan, but it was clear from the beginning that he was simply self-financing a large part of his campaign.
What makes Mrs. Clinton’s situation unusual is the combination of unpaid bills and her own personal loan. Records show that other unsuccessful candidates owed less than half to their vendors than what she owes to businesses. “It’s unprecedented,” said Jan Baran, a campaign finance lawyer with Wiley Rein.
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, for instance, ended his campaign for the Republican nomination also owing numerous vendors, but his total debt was $3.6 million, including $500,000 he lent the race.
And in one of the more memorable cases of debt, former Senator John Glenn of Ohio ended his 1984 Democratic presidential bid with nearly $3 million in debt. He struggled for more than 20 years to pay it off until the Federal Election Commission issued him a reprieve.
Mrs. Clinton’s options for retiring her debt are limited. On the positive side, she has raised about $1 million online and by mail since polls closed in Montana and South Dakota last Tuesday to end the primary season, her campaign said. The continued flow of donations, even after Senator Barack Obama had crossed the threshold of delegates he needed to claim the nomination, may indicate that some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters may be devoted enough to pitch in to help with her debt.
Otherwise, the most discussed option is for Mr. Obama, now the presumed nominee, to encourage his fund-raising team to help her with a series of joint events.
Campaign finance laws prohibit Mr. Obama from simply transferring money from his war chest to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But Mr. Obama’s fund-raisers could ask their donors to give to Mrs. Clinton.
David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, will meet with some top Clinton fund-raisers on Thursday in New York, according to the Web site Talking Points Memo and confirmed by a Clinton fund-raiser.
Several Obama fund-raisers interviewed, however, said privately that they believed helping Mrs. Clinton with her debt would be difficult, given that they are also being asked to raise money for Mr. Obama and to build up the coffers of the Democratic National Committee, which badly trails the Republican National Committee in cash on hand.
They also pointed out that some Obama donors would find it difficult to overcome the animosity they had built up during a long, hard-fought primary season.
In an example of just how difficult it can be to raise money for another candidate, Senator John McCain’s campaign agreed this year to help Mr. Giuliani retire his debt, but progress has been slow because of the need to raise money for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and the party.
Even as Mrs. Clinton must raise money to pay her bills, her campaign must liquidate more than $23 million in contributions set aside for the general election. They can do it by either returning it to donors or designating it for her Senate re-election campaign in 2012, provided she obtains permission from her donors to do so.
Mrs. Clinton could simply shutter her presidential campaign committee and transfer her remaining debt to her Senate campaign fund and continue to raise money to pay it down.
But several campaign finance experts were divided about whether she could take the money from the general election designated to her Senate coffers and use it toward her debt.
Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said that he believed such a maneuver was possible but that he would advise her to obtain an advisory opinion from the commission to guide her. “I think there’s a good argument that she can,” Mr. Gross said. “It’s not 100 percent clear.”
But Mr. Baran said he believed categorically that the action would be illegal.
There is technically no deadline for Mrs. Clinton to pay back her creditors, but because of a clause in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance measure that was intended to limit the ability of candidates to self-finance campaigns, she has until the convention in August to pay herself back. After that, the most she could recover is $250,000.
Mrs. Clinton could also whittle down her debt by re-negotiating what she owes with her various creditors, but the Federal Election Commission would have to sign off to ensure that a good-faith effort was made to pay off the debt. It also must be satisfied that the renegotiated bills do not amount to an in-kind donation from a corporation to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
“If they think there was a sweetheart deal, they may raise some questions,” Mr. Gross said.
Some of Mrs. Clinton’s largest outstanding bills are to some of her closest advisers, who might be willing to cut her a deal. Mrs. Clinton, for example, owes nearly $5 million to the firm of her former pollster and senior strategist, Mark Penn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
