Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13Jul05

13Jul05

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by ctr4media

More info:

Published by: ctr4media on Jul 24, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/08/2012

pdf

text

original

 
MiliiAnalysis Conference CallWednesday. Julv 13.2005. Room
2E572
The
Pentaaon
Host
M
.
,
BrefersS~bjeci BI alegations
of
abuse
at
QTMOTranscriber MurohvMs
Barter
Hi
itsAlflon
BirMr,
Dc
.
r,
r
tense
Thankyoufor,o~nngusMayf~M
-who
wfll
maw some opening rernaiKs and
b-.&i
nÃ
o
.
w
"dings And then
we
It turn
it
bacx over
to
results
of
that am our actions and then
we
li
open
@I
p brquestionsJust
as
a
reminder, his is on background. We'realso Joined bm:I1 be happy
to
take your calls
after
we go through the opening remarks.
So
with thihank
you
for
joining
us
today.m~hankou Allison.
I
appreciate
t.
lam going togive you a truncated version
of
Mat
we
used this morning n
the
SASC
Senate
Armed
Services
Committee) hearing with a Mebackground, and I'll turn
it
overto^^^^^H and he'll talk about his findlws:recommendations,and
I'll
dose
with
my decision on those recommendations..The alkaations In the FBI emails came
b
ioM as a
miin
of a FOIA
last
vear. late in theyear ~fter
eview
of
the mails, following the,
release
-
1believe
II
was
in
~ecember-determumd mat me alkgadons menw
a
dgtai~dxaminnon
h
order
b
nI8blnh he Irum. andascertain what
if
any actions
needed
to De
taken
So
I
ordered
a
15-6.
hy
egulation
15-6
inveilinniion, and appointed Brigadier General JohnF~rtowwho is
the
deputy -mander
for
U
S
A&y
So& my component command or theArmy. as the
nveswating
offmr
I
oto Jon" to address ugnt allegations hat were drawn
from
me FBI emails
l
will not art
culam
each
of
them
if
there's questions ater on
I
can do thatSubsequent to that initial appointment of Furrow.
I
directed John to
nvestiw
two
addt onalallegations that came
~p
and
were
bmd~hto hghi One concerned a female military mteirogatorallegedly performing a lap dance on a detainee
Second
was tne weof
red
ink
as
ake menstrualblood during an intek&lbn.
Now
those allegations
came
from
a
separate document. In my
instructions
to
John Furtow,
I
idnot limit him to ust thou altegations.
I
ave him the flexibility to
bling
Into
his invesllgatlon myadditional allegations
of
detainee abuse that he might discover during the course
of
his
work.
Now
on
28
February. 2005. after
two
months of investination. John
advised
me that he
needed
o
interview officers
who
were
senior
In
rank
to
mm
As
aiesult of that.
I
ppointee LieutenantGeneral Mark Schmdt who
n
me commander
of
my
Air
Force component command AFSoutft
J.
-
,-r--
.
L
I
3
>
I
19
General Schmiot submitted his initial report
o
me on the firm of April thn
year
After
Â
mew.
I
directed
on
the
5lh
of
May the
invesifiabm
be
reopened
to
consider
two
memo*
from
me
December 2004
me
rame tnat had bean
recenlv
discovered And thev
wem
Wn
mwrd
to
a
special Interrogationplan on a detainee
 
Whib
the team
was
comp.u
nq
that additional ask.
I
urther
directed on the 2nd of June thatGeneral Schm
dl
adaress a second sU
of
new
allegations
made
by
8 detainee that alsoconcameo a swcol merrooafeon obn General Schmlmmpetod hb nwtioatton on the
9th
d
~une, nd my
staff
judge advocate
began
a legal
review
of
the report
I
nave completed my
wmo
uhn
mv
mnns
wiin
-rd
to
he findriot
ana
recommendation*
I
ill
inform
you
d
I
I
ank you, silewandtrytogi
I
am going to go through
the
scope Of
1
runcatedversion
of
the briefing.The mwsigation was0
reeled
and accomplished under the Informal
procedures
provisions
d
ireit regulation AR
15-6
And the AR 154 nvesnaabon centered on FBI aI.qed abuses occurring
dunnQ
mterroaatKin
overations The team
found
Incidents
d
abne dunna dfnuon ooertlonsan
ofivhkh
were appiopriately
addressed
by the command.Die team conducted 8 comprehensive
maw
d
houaanoi of documents
and
atomentepertaining
o
any allegation*
d
abdu occtrrlng at Guantanamo. to lnc4t.de the
cofnpteto
medical
racoros
of me subject*
of
what
we
call tne first and -d specnl ntfrooation plansThe
team
interviewed 30 FBI agents conducted interviews of over
100
personnel had
aDxss
to
hundreds
of
interviews conducted
by
several
recent
investiflations.
These
intervi&s indudedpersonnel assigned
o
Guantanamo
US.
Southern Command Office of
ihe
Secretay
of
Defense all during the tenure
of
JTFS
160
170 and currently~uantanamo.t induded 76
Do0
personnel, to include
every
general officerwho commanded he Joint Task Force 160,170
and
Guantanamo. Additionally,
weconsidered
abuse allegation:
made
by two high-value
detainees
themselves.
me nveitigalion eam attempted to determine
f
these allegatim In
fact
occurred, thoseabgations
made
by
the FBI. During
he
courts
of
a
follow-up invstigalion, the
AR
15-6
also
consideredallegations aised speoifcally by the
detainees
who were
ihe
subject
of
those
two
special nterrogationplans.
The
investigating eam applied a preponderance standard
of
Proof
consistent
with
the guidance
contained
n
the Army Regulation 15-6. Much
of
the testimony wasobtained from
witnesses
who
had
served as much as three years
earlier,
and sometimed for45days
or
ess. Civilian witnesses were not required o
cooperate,
nor under subpoena toanswerquestions.The loam also applied gudanca conma
h
hat regulation, Cunmandw U
S.
SOUTHCOM andSecretary
of
Defense memorandums euthonz
rig
spocd mlenugatmn
lechniqu~
f deciding
f
8
pTHc.~tarmterrogator
approach
fç
propÈn
çitm
en
admonzed
tachnqueIn
mow
cases
in
which
ttr
eam concluded tnm the allegation
had
in
(act
occurred, the teamthen consK.iwfJ whether the incident
was
n cutnplance with interrogation techniques that
were
approvea
either
at the time of the nddent
or
subsequent to the incidentIn those cases where t was determined that the allegationoccurred o
not
have
been
an
authorized
technique,
the
eam then reviewed whetherdisclpftaly action had already been takenand the
propftety
of
that action
on
thezuh
of
arch,-asked
me
to
determine accountability
a
tho-
subsl~tieted io!Alnns that had no mmandWon eken.We did
not
review the legal validity
of
thevarious nterrogatlon echniques outlhed n Amy FddManual
34.52,
or those approved
by
the
Secretary
of
Defense.I'd like to cover the summary
of
findings,
 
There were nine FBI allegations. Two were unsubstantiated.Two were never authorized, andcorrective action was taken on those. And there were
five
that were authorized.The detention and interrogation operations at JTF-Guantanamo cover a three-year period and
over
24,000 interrogations. This investigation ound only three interrogation acts
to
be
conductedin violation
of
interrogation techniquesauthorized by the Field Manual 34-52 and DoD guidance.And
I
will
cover
those threeThe first one
-
on at least two occasions between February 2002 and February 2003
two
detainees were short shackled to the eye bolt on the floor
of
the interrogation room. And that
was
an
FBI allegation.Secondly, some time
in
October 2002, duct tape was used to quiet a detainee. Also an FBIÂ¥negatioThree
-
military interrogators threatened the subject of the second special interrogation and hisfamily, and that was discovered: that was
not
part
of
an FBI allegation.The inspection team also found that the commander
of
JTF-Guantanamo ailed to monitor heinterrogation of one high-value detainee, that is ISN-063. The team found that the individualinterrogation echniques, while authorized, resulted
n
the persistent, cumulative effect of beingdegrading and abusive treatmentFinally, the investigation ound that the communication
of
a threat to the second high-valuedetainee was in violation of
SecM
guMance and the UCMJ.The team found
no
evidence
of
torture
or
inhumane reatment at JTF Guantanamo.Again, the investigation ocused on FBI allegations on aggressive Interrogation actics.
That
was
our
focus
I
~hanks~dunder~rmyegulation
154,
as the appointing authority for theinvestigation, my responsibility was to review the report and take action
on
the findings andrecommendations. n aking my action,
I
ccepted or approved all the numbered findings andrecommendations ncluded in the written report which was provided
o
the Committee hismomina both in.
I
elieve, unclass and
classified
ormat, excaot for
two
recommendations hat
I
did notapprove.First,
I
disapproved recommendationNo. 16which was that Major General (Geoffrey) Miller
be
held accountable or falling to supervise me interrogationof ISN-063 and that he be admonishedfor that failure.
Now.
in accordance with current
orowdures
and regulations.
I
orwarded this report to theDepartmentof the
Arm9
Inspector General for review and acton
as
he
deems aPProPMle
Even
thou~h disapproved
h
under
Army
regulations any allegation
of
wrongdoing must
W
forwardeoto the Armv iG for nformamn and acton
ax
ne
aaema
aoomormta
And
as
a
Combatant~ommander, could not admonish someone not under
hi
&mmand at
this
ime anyway.Secondly, 1 modified recommendationNo.
22
to
request that the Naval Criminal InvestigativeService conduct further investigation nto the threat communicatedby
an
interrogator
to
aparticular high-value detainee before forwarding
the
matter to the current commander of thatinterrogator for action

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->