Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration/Catalogs

These are part of a broader context of interrogation techniques that had been defined in then-classified guidance, as approved for use by military interrogators at Guantanamo. In the table below, the first letter refers to guidance in Rumsfeld's directive of April 2004; the number is a related description in Mackay's Appendix on Interrogating Approaches. Those marked Rumsfeld 2002 required the USSOUTHCOM commander to determine that military necessity existed for their use, and to notify the Secretary of Defense prior to their use. Those techniques in the Guidance existed were discussed in FM 34-52; Rumsfeld said guidance needed to be developed for the other methods (R-Z).

The third field (e.g., I-2b) refers to the list in the October 11, 2002 memorandum from LTC Jerald Phifer, staff intelligence director for JTF 170. . The Roman numeral represents the intensity of the technique, from I as mildly to III as strongly coercive. The number (and letter) following denotes the specific technique.
 * Category I: The process begins generally comfortable enviroment, starting with direct interrogation techniques, and using rewards such as cookies and cigarettes if appropriate. Category I methods are preauthorized if the detainee is uncooperative.
 * Category II: These require the permission of the Officer-in-Charge, Interrogation Section
 * Category III: May be used only with prior approval by the JTF Commanding General, with legal review and information (although not preapproval) by the Commander, USSOUTHCOM. They also can include "other aversive techniques, such as use in military interrogation resistance training (i.e., SERE) or by other U.S. government agencies)". "Other government agency (OGA)" is a common military euphemism for the Central Intelligence Agency, but it is uncertain if Phifer was referring to the CIA-only techniques.

Phifer does list, as Category III-3, a technique that meets at least some definitions of the waterboarding interrogation technique. His description is somewhat different than the CIA method described by ABC News, and may actually be more dangerous; see the technique subarticle.

This memo was reviewed and approved by the JTF Staff Judge Advocate (legal officer), LTC Diane Beaver. and recommended to the Commander of USSOUTHCOM by MG Michael Dunlavey. Dulavey was of the opinion that these were necessary to overcome increased resistance, but he believed they would not violate U.S. or international law.

Without making a judgment on whether the techniques meet the requirements of international law, it is noteworthy to compare the wording of Category III, Technique 1, with the wording of the U.N. General Assembly definition of torture.

"The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family"

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

It may be inferred, but is not definitely known, if all these techniques, with the approval and guidance caveats, were approved for use at facilities other than Guantanamo, but the existence of guidance strongly suggests that A-Q were approved. The Befuddled Interrogator is not in Rumsfeld's memo, but, since listed by Mackay, was probably a standard and approved method.

In no guidance, however, do the humiliation methods used by guards at Abu Ghraib prison appear. The techniques used on Abed Hamed Mowhoush, which resulted in his death, do not appear in either military or CIA guidance.

The column Sanchez indicates whether the method was addressed in the interrogation rules of engagement defined by LTG Ricardo Sanchez, first commander of the military occupation force in Iraq, Joint Task Force 7 (JTF-7)
 * Note 1: Category I mentions both gain and loss of incentive; the interview is intended to start with comfortable conditions and the direct interrogation techniques. Incentive gain (i.e., cigarettes and cookies) are mentioned as an add-on.
 * Note 2: Falsified documents are mentioned by Phifer and appear to support this method
 * Note 3a: 30 days with approval of officer-in-charge; 30 day extensions by Commanding General.
 * Note 3b: 30 days with approval of Commanding General.
 * Note 4a: Maximum of 4 hours (Dunlavey)
 * Note 4b: Maximum of 45 minutes (Sanchez)
 * Note 5: See CIA interrogation development
 * Note 6: Interrogation up to 20 hours at a time