The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (104 page)

1662.
See
open source reporting, including “Secret Life of Shoe Bomb Saajid Badat Funded By The Taxpayer,” U.K.
Telegraph
, dated April 23, 2012; “US court hears Bin Ladin testimony from UK bomb plotter,”
BBC News
, dated April 24, 2012; “Operative Details Al Qaeda Plans to Hit Planes in Wake of 9/11,”
CNN
, dated April 25, 2012; “‘Convention’ of Convicted Terrorists at NY Trial,”
NPR News
, dated April 24, 2012; and “Man Convicted of a Terrorist Plot to Bomb Subways Is Sent to Prison for Life,”
New York Times
, dated November 16, 2012.

1663.
While the CIA refers to “Canary Wharf’ as a potential target of KSM’s plotting, intelligence records suggest the actual target was likely “One Canada Square,” the tallest building in the United Kingdom at the time of the plotting, which is located in Canary Wharf, a major business district in London.

1664.
See
detailed intelligence chronology in Volume II.

1665.
See
the Karachi Plots section in this summary, as well as additional details in Volume II.

1666.
Italics included in CIA Memorandum to the Office of Legal Counsel, entitled, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques,” from March 2, 2005.

1667.
From 2003 through 2009, the CIA’s representations regarding the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques provided a specific set of examples of terrorist plots “disrupted” and terrorists captured that the CIA attributed to information obtained from the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA representations further asserted that the intelligence obtained from the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques was unique, otherwise unavailable, and resulted in “saved lives.” Among other CIA representations, see: (1) CIA representations in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum, dated May 30, 2005, which relied on a series of highly specific CIA representations on the type of intelligence acquired from the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques to assess their legality. The CIA representations referenced by the OLC include that the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were “necessary” to obtain “critical,” “vital,” and “otherwise unavailable actionable intelligence” that was “essential” for the U.S. government to “detect and disrupt” terrorist threats. The OLC memorandum further states that “[the CIA] ha[s] informed [the OLCJ that the CIA believes that this program is largely responsible for preventing a subsequent attack within the United States.” (
See
Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, May 30, 2005, Re: Application of United States Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees.) (2) CIA representations in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum dated July 20, 2007, which also relied on CIA representations on the type of intelligence acquired from the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques. Citing CIA documents and the President’s September 6, 2006, speech describing the CIA’s interrogation program (which was based on CIA-provided information), the OLC memorandum states: “The CIA interrogation program—and, in particular, its use of enhanced interrogation techniques—is intended to serve this paramount interest [security of the nation] by producing substantial quantities of otherwise unavailable intelligence…. As the President explained [on September 6, 2006], ‘by giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, the program has saved innocent lives.’” (
See
Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, July 20, 2007, Re: Application of the War Crimes Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain Techniques that May Be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees.) (3) CIA briefings for members of the National Security Council in July and September 2003 represented that “the use of Enhanced Techniques of one kind or another had produced significant intelligence information that had, in the view of CIA professionals, saved lives,” and warned policymakers that “[t]ermination of this program will result in loss of life, possibly extensive.” (
See
August 5, 2003 Memorandum for the Record from Scott Muller, Subject: Review of Interrogation Program on 29 July 2003; Briefing slides, CIA Interrogation Program, July 29, 2003; September 4, 2003, CIA Memorandum for the Record, Subject: Member Briefing; and September 26, 2003, Memorandum for the Record from Muller, Subject: CIA Interrogation Program.) (4) The CIA’s response to the Office of Inspector General draft Special Review of the CIA program, which asserts: “Information [the CIAl received . . . as a result of the lawful use of enhanced interrogation techniques (‘EITs’) has almost certainly saved countless American lives inside the United States and abroad. The evidence points clearly to the fact that without the use of such techniques, we and our allies would [have] suffered major terrorist attacks involving hundreds, if not thousands, of casualties.” (
See
Memorandum for: Inspector General; from: James Pavitt, Deputy Director for Operations; subject: re (S) Comments to Draft IG Special Review, “Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Program” 2003-7123-IG; date: February 27, 2004; attachment: February 24, 2004, Memorandum re Successes of CIA’s Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities.) (5) CIA briefing documents for CIA Director Leon Panetta in February 2009, which state that the “CIA assesses that the RDI program worked and the [enhanced interrogation] techniques were effective in producing foreign intelligence,” and that “[m]ost, if not all, of the timely intelligence acquired from detainees in this program would not have been discovered or reported by other means.” (
See
CIA briefing documents for Leon Panetta, entitled, “Tab 9: DCIA Briefing on RDI Program- 18FEB.2009” and graphic attachment, “Key Intelligence and Reporting Derived from Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM),” including “DCIA Briefing on RDI Program” agenda, CIA document “EITs and Effectiveness,” with associated documents, “Key Intelligence Impacts Chart: Attachment (AZ and KSM),” “Background on Key Intelligence Impacts Chart: Attachment,” and “supporting references,” to include “Background on Key Captures and Plots Disrupted.”) (6) CIA document faxed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 18, 2009, entitled, “SWIGERT and DUNBAR,” located in Committee databases at DTS #2009-1258, which provides a list of “some of the key captures and disrupted plots” that the CIA had attributed to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, and stating: “CIA assesses that most, if not all, of the timely intelligence acquired from detainees in this program would not have been discovered or reported by any other means.”
See
Volume II for additional CIA representations asserting that the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques enabled the CIA to obtain unique, otherwise unavailable intelligence that “saved lives.”

1668.
This information was incorrect. CIA records indicate that by December 23, 2005, at least 38 CIA detainees had been subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

1669.
Italics added. “Impact of the Loss of the Detainee Program to CT Operations and Analysis,” prepared to support a letter from CIA Director Goss to Stephen J. Hadley, Assistant to the President/National Security Advisor, Frances F. Townsend, Assistant to the President/Homeland Security Advisor, and Ambassador John D. Negroponte, dated December 23, 2005.

1670.
Italics added. CIA memorandum to the CIA Inspector General from James Pavitt, CIA’s Deputy Director for Operations, dated February 27, 2004, with the subject line, “Comments to Draft IG Special Review, ‘Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Program’ (2003-7123-IG),” Attachment, “Successes of CIA’s Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities,” dated February 24, 2004.

1671.
See
list of CIA prepared briefings and memoranda from 2003 through 2009 with representations on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques referenced in this summary and described in detail in Volume II.

1672.
As described in this Study, the CIA consistently represented from 2003 through 2009 that the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques resulted in “disrupted plots,” listed the “Heathrow Plot” as disrupted “as a result of the EITs,” and informed policymakers that the information acquired to disrupt the plotting could not have been obtained from other intelligence sources or methods available to the U.S. government. In at least one CIA representation to White House officials that highlighted the Heathrow plotting, the CIA represented that “the use of the [CIA’s enhanced interrogation] techniques has produced significant results,” and warned policymakers that “[t]ermination of this [CIA] program will result in loss of life, possibly extensive.” The CIA’s June 2013 Response states: “CIA disagrees with the
Study
’s assessment that [the CIA] incorrectly represented that information derived from interrogating detainees helped disrupt al-Qa’ida’s targeting of Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, including in President Bush’s 2006 speech on the Program. Detainee reporting, including some which was acquired after enhanced interrogation techniques were applied, played a critical role in uncovering the plot, understanding it, detaining many of the key players, and ultimately allowing us to conclude it had been disrupted. It is a complex story, however, and we should have been clearer in delineating the roles played by different partners.” As described in this summary, past CIA representations concerning the Heathrow Airport plotting and intelligence acquired “as a result of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate. (See, among other records, the September 6, 2006, speech by President Bush, based on CIA information and vetted by the CIA, which describes the CIA’s use of “an alternative set” of interrogation procedures and stating: “These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program. Terrorists held in CIA custody… have helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or Canary Wharf in London.”) Contrary to the CIA’s June 2013 assertion, CIA records indicate that information related to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques played no role in “detaining many of the key players” and played no role in “uncovering the [Heathrow] plot.” CIA records indicate the Heathrow Airport plotting had not progressed beyond the initial planning stages when the operation was fully disrupted with the detention of Ramzi bin al-Shibh (detained on September 11, 2002), KSM (detained on March 1, 2003), Ammar-al-Baluchi (detained on April 29, 2003), and Khallad bin Attash (detained on April 29, 2003). The CIA’s June 2013 Response states that “[b]y all accounts, KSM’s arrest was the action that most disrupted the [Heathrow] plot.” As detailed in this summary and in greater detail in Volume II, the capture of these detainees—including KSM—was unrelated to any reporting from CIA detainees. CIA records further indicate that details on al-Qa’ida’s targeting of Heathrow Airport were acquired prior to any reporting from CIA detainees. For example, prior to receiving any information from CIA detainees, the CIA acquired detailed information about al-Qa’ida’s targeting of Heathrow Airport, to include, but not limited to, the al-Qa’ida senior leaders involved, the method of the planned attack, the status of the operation, and the
kunyas
of two potential unwitting operatives in the United Kingdom. Finally, the CIA’s June 2013 Response claims that its past CIA representations were accurate and that CIA “detainee reporting, including some which was acquired after enhanced interrogation techniques were applied, played a critical role” in providing information, “ultimately allowing [CIA] to conclude it had been disrupted.” Prior to June 2013, the CIA had never represented that the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques produced information “allowing [CIA] to conclude [the Heathrow Plot] had been disrupted.” Rather, as detailed in this summary and more fully in Volume II, the CIA represented that the information acquired “as a result of EITs” produced unique, otherwise unavailable “actionable intelligence” that “saved lives” and disrupted the plotting itself. As detailed, these representations were inaccurate.

1673.
DIRECTOR █████ (172132Z OCT 02).

1674.
DIRECTOR █████ (172132Z OCT 02).

1675.
DIRECTOR █████ (172132Z OCT 02).

1676.
[REDACTED] 20901 (301117Z SEP 02).
See also
███████████, CIA ███████████████.

1677.
CIA █████ ██████████. In October 2002, months prior to KSM’s capture, Ramzi bin al-Shibh (RBS), who had not yet been rendered to CIA custody and therefore not yet subjected to the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, identified Abu Yusef and Abu Adil as potential U.K.-based Heathrow operatives. RBS described how the two English-speaking “al-Qa’ida suicide operatives” were dispatched to the United Kingdom by KSM. RBS provided a detailed description of the two potential operatives, as well as their travel. (
See
CIA █████ ███████████) KSM was captured on March 1, 2003. The CIA’s June 2013 Response nonetheless asserts that “KSM also was responsible for helping us identify two potential operatives—known only as Abu Yusef and Abu Adil— whom al-Qa’ida had deployed to the United Kingdom by early 2002 and whom KSM wanted to tap for a role in a future Heathrow operation.” U.K. investigative efforts led to the identification of Abu Yusef, who then identified Abu Adil—who was already an investigative target of the U.K. government. In February 2004, the CIA reported that no CIA detainee was able to identify a photograph of Abu Yusif.
See
ALEC █████ (262236Z FEB 04).