Interrogation Techniques: Cia's Law-Breaking Methods?

The CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques on detainees in the aftermath of 9/11 has been widely criticised and labelled as torture. The CIA's interrogation program included tactics such as beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and waterboarding. The CIA admitted to waterboarding three people implicated in the 9/11 attacks.

A 2014 US Senate Intelligence Committee report found that the CIA's legal justification for the use of harsh interrogation techniques was based on faulty legal reasoning. The report also concluded that the CIA used interrogation methods that were not approved by its own headquarters or the US Justice Department, and that the CIA impeded oversight from the White House, Congress, and its own Inspector General.

Human rights groups and foreign governments have called the CIA's program torture, and the UN and human rights groups have called for the prosecution of US officials involved. However, there has been reluctance to prosecute those involved, and critics have accused the CIA of systematically misleading Congress, the White House, and the Department of Justice.

Did the CIA's interrogation methods constitute torture?

The CIA's interrogation methods, referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques", have been widely criticised and labelled as torture. These methods were used on detainees in the aftermath of 9/11 and included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinement in small coffin-like boxes, exposure to extreme temperatures, painful stress positions, and sexual threats and humiliation.

The United Nations Convention against Torture, which the US has signed, defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" in order to obtain information. Human rights groups and several foreign governments have stated that the CIA's program included torture. Additionally, a report by Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) concluded that the CIA's techniques violated US laws, including the War Crimes Act, the US Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

The CIA's legal justification for the use of these interrogation techniques was based on faulty legal reasoning, according to a classified US Senate report. The report also found that the CIA used methods that were not approved by its headquarters or the US Justice Department and that the agency provided false information to the Justice Department. The CIA claimed that its interrogation program was legal because those applying the techniques did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain or suffering. However, this rationale has been criticised, with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stating that the US is legally obligated to bring those responsible to justice.

While there have been calls for the prosecution of US officials involved in the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques", no high-ranking officials have been prosecuted. President Barack Obama, who halted the program when he took office in 2009, declined to prosecute his predecessors in the Bush administration, citing concerns about a potential backlash from the military, intelligence agencies, and national security implications.

Did the CIA mislead Congress, the White House and the Department of Justice?

The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, established after the 9/11 attacks, has been criticized for misleading Congress, the White House, and the Department of Justice.

The CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was deemed to be a euphemism for systematic torture. The CIA's interrogation methods included beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation, deprivation of food, drink, and medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, rape, sexual assault, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, and confinement in small coffin-like boxes.

In 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) released a 525-page document containing the key findings and an executive summary of their report into the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. The report concluded that the CIA had deceived their superiors at the White House, members of Congress, and even sometimes their peers about how the interrogation program was being run and what it had achieved. The report also concluded that the CIA had impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.

The CIA's actions prompted the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, to state that waterboarding is "immoral and illegal". In addition, the European Court of Human Rights formally ruled that "enhanced interrogation" was tantamount to torture and ordered Poland to pay restitution to men tortured at a CIA black site.

In response to the SSCI report, three former CIA directors—George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden—criticized the report as "a partisan attack on the agency". They insisted that some information derived from the CIA program was useful and that the CIA did not mislead the Department of Justice, White House, or Congress.

Did the CIA's interrogation methods produce valuable intelligence?

The CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The program was authorized by the George W. Bush administration and included methods such as beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.

The effectiveness of these techniques in acquiring valuable intelligence is a highly debated topic. Supporters of the program, including former President Bush, argue that it saved lives and helped prevent terrorist attacks. Bush specifically cited the prevention of attacks on Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London as an example of the program's success.

However, critics argue that the brutal nature of the techniques produced little intelligence of value. A leaked White House memo from July 2014 stated that the practices were brutal and yielded minimal valuable intelligence. Additionally, a Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees. The report also criticized the CIA for allowing psychologists with no background in counter-terrorism to assess the effectiveness of their own program.

Furthermore, in 2013, a Columbia University task force found that medical professionals working for the CIA played a critical role in reviewing and approving forms of torture, such as waterboarding and extended sleep deprivation, as medically acceptable. This contradicts the argument that valuable intelligence was obtained through these methods.

In summary, while some argue that the CIA's interrogation techniques produced valuable intelligence, there is significant evidence to suggest that the brutality of the methods yielded minimal valuable information and may have caused more harm than good.

Did the CIA's interrogation methods cause brain damage, broken bones and psychological damage?

The CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques, authorised by the George W. Bush administration, included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinement in coffin-like boxes, exposure to extreme temperatures, and rectal feeding. These techniques have been associated with brain damage, broken bones, and psychological damage.

Waterboarding involves restraining a prisoner on their back with their feet higher than their head, or tying them upside down. A cloth is placed over their face, and water is poured on it and into their nose and mouth. The prisoner gags as water enters their lungs, and their body goes into spasm. This technique can result in brain damage, broken bones, and psychological damage.

In addition to waterboarding, the CIA's interrogation techniques included confinement in small, coffin-like boxes. Detainee Abu Zubaydah was confined to a coffin-like box for a total of 295 hours, with 29 of those hours spent in an even smaller box. This technique has been associated with psychological damage.

The CIA also subjected detainees to extreme temperatures, which could result in hypothermia. This technique involves leaving a naked prisoner in a cell kept at around 10°C, while regularly dousing them with cold water.

The CIA's interrogation techniques also included rectal feeding, which has been described as brutalising and medically unnecessary.

The use of these techniques has sparked debates about their legality and effectiveness, with human rights groups and foreign governments condemning them as torture.

Will there be prosecutions for torture?

Torture is illegal in the United States. However, there is no federal criminal statute against torture within the US. There is a federal criminal statute against committing torture outside the US, and a federal criminal statute against assault and battery within the US, which torture would fall under. Torture is also a violation of international law per the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).

Despite the occurrence of cases of extraterritorial torture of detainees, no prosecutions have been initiated under the extraterritorial criminal torture statute. There is also a federal law defining torture, and state laws outlawing it.

Torture as a punishment falls under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The US Supreme Court has held since at least the 1890s that punishments which involved torture are forbidden under the Eighth Amendment.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the President to conduct military tribunals of enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely without judicial review under the terms of habeas corpus. Amnesty International and others have criticized the Act for approving a system that uses torture. Part of the act was an amendment that retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act, effectively making policymakers and those applying policy no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what, before the amendment, was defined as a war crime, such as torture. Critics describe the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed during the War on Terror.

In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order ending the use of torture by the government. However, there will be no trials even of those who went well beyond what the Torture Memos allowed, including those who tortured detainees to death. The rationale has not been disclosed.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes in international law. However, prosecutions in either the International Criminal Court, or in the courts of a particular nation invoking the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, are also regarded as unlikely. The US is a signatory of the Rome Statute and is not party to the International Criminal Court. The UN Security Council (UNSC) can recommend cases to the ICC, but the US can, as one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, veto the recommendation.

The decision not to prosecute predated Obama's taking office and was due to concern about a backlash by leaders of the military, the National Security Agency, and the CIA. Legal analysts have said that prosecutions would create a precedent putting Obama administration officials at risk of politically motivated prosecutions by their successors.

The United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture, Human Rights Watch, and American legal scholars have called for the prosecution of Bush administration officials who ordered torture, conspired to provide legal cover for torture, and CIA and DoD personnel and contract workers who carried it out. However, neither US domestic nor international prosecution of high-ranking officials is likely.

Frequently asked questions