The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (88 page)

1185.
For example, see CIA “Questions and Proposed Answers,” 9/2/2006, Tab 2 of CIA Validation of Remarks on Detainee Policy, September 6, 2006.

1186.
See, for example, March 2, 2005, CIA memorandum for Steve Bradbury from █████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.”

1187.
See, for example, ODNI September 2006 Unclassified Public Release: “During initial interrogation, Abu Zubaydah gave some information that he probably viewed as nominal. Some was important, however, including that Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (KSM) was the 9/11 mastermind and used the moniker ‘Mukhtar.’ This identification allowed us to comb previously collected intelligence for both names, opening up new leads to this terrorist plotter—leads that eventually resulted in his capture. It was clear to his interrogators that Abu Zubaydah possessed a great deal of information about al-Qa’ida; however, he soon stopped all cooperation. Over the ensuing months, the CIA designed a new interrogation program that would be safe, effective, and legal.”
See also
Presidential Speech on September 6, 2006, based on CIA information and vetted by CIA personnel.

1188.
As detailed in DIRECTOR ███ (031357Z AUG 02).
See also
Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, dated August 1, 2002, and entitled “Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative,” which states: “The interrogation team is certain [Abu Zubaydah] has additional information that he refuses to divulge. Specifically, he is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas.”

1189.
Among other documents, see Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program,” September 6, 2006; and CIA Memorandum for Steve Bradbury at the Department of Justice, dated March 2, 2005, from █████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, subject “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.”

1190.
See, for example, March 2, 2005, CIA memorandum for Steve Bradbury from █████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.”

1191.
Email from: ███; to: █████, ████, and ████; subject: “Suggested language change for AZ”; date: August 30, 2006, at 06:32 PM.

1192.
Sametime communication, ████ and █████, 30/Aug/06 13:15:23 to 19:31:47.

1193.
See ODNI September 2006 Unclassified Public Release: “During initial interrogation, Abu Zubaydah gave some information that he probably viewed as nominal. Some was important, however, including that Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (KSM) was the 9/11 mastermind and used the moniker ‘Mukhtar.’ This identification allowed us to comb previously collected intelligence for both names, opening up new leads to this terrorist plotter—leads that eventually resulted in his capture. It was clear to his interrogators that Abu Zubaydah possessed a great deal of information about al-Qa’ida; however, he soon stopped all cooperation. Over the ensuing months, the CIA designed a new interrogation program that would be safe, effective, and legal.”
See also
Presidential Speech on September 6, 2006, based on CIA information and vetted by CIA personnel, that states: “We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives. But he stopped talking . . . And so, the CIA used an alternative set of procedures.”

1194.
███ 10424 (070814Z JUN 02).

1195.
See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume IE, to include CIA email [REDACTED] dated March 28, 2007, 04:42PM, with the subject line, “Subject detainee allegation—per our telcon of today.”

1196.
See reporting charts in Abu Zubaydah detainee review, as well as CIA paper entitled “Abu Zubaydah” and dated March 2005. The same information was included in an “Abu Zubaydah Bio” document “Prepared on 9 August 2006.”

1197.
See reporting charts in the Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III.

1198.
See ████ 10586 (041559Z AUG 02), which states: “In truth, [Zubaydah] can halt the proceedings at any time by providing truthful revelations on the threat which may save countless lives.”

1199.
See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III.

1200.
As detailed in DIRECTOR ██ (031357Z AUG 02). The CIA further represented: (1) that the enhanced interrogation phase of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation would likely last “no more than several days but could last up to thirty days,” (2) “that the use of the [enhanced interrogation techniques] would be on an as-needed basis and that not all of these techniques will necessarily be used,” (3) that the CIA expected “these techniques to be used in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique,” (4) “that although some of these techniques may be used more than once, that repetition will not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions,” and (5) “that steps will be taken to ensure that [Abu Zubaydah’s] injury is not in any way exacerbated by the use of these methods.” See the Abu Zubaydah detainee review for detailed information for how these statements proved almost entirely inaccurate.
See also
Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, August 1, 2002, Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative.

1201.
DIRECTOR ███ (031357Z AUG 02).

1202.
[REDACTED] 73208 (231043Z JUL 02); email from: █████; to: [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and ████; subject: Addendum from [DETENTION SITE GREEN]; date: July 23, 2002, at 07:56:49 PM; [REDACTED] 73208 (231043Z JUL 02). Additional assessments by the interrogation team that Abu Zubaydah was not withholding information are described in the Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III.

1203.
See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III. Participants in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah also wrote that Abu Zubaydah “probably reached the point of cooperation even prior to the August institution of ‘enhanced’ measures -a development missed because of the narrow focus of the questioning. In any event there was no evidence that the waterboard produced time-perishable information which otherwise would have been unobtainable.” See CIA Summary and Reflections of ███ Medical Services on OMS participation in the RDI program.

1204.
CIA paper entitled “Abu Zubaydah” and dated March 2005.
See also
“Abu Zubaydah Bio” document “Prepared on 9 August 2006.”

1205.
See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III, and CIA paper entitled, “Abu Zubaydah,” dated March 2005; as well as “Abu Zubaydah Bio” document “Prepared on 9 August 2006.”

1206.
See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III.

1207.
Abu Zubaydah was taken into CIA custody on March █, 2002, and was shortly thereafter hospitalized until April 15, 2002. Abu Zubaydah returned to DETENTION SITE GREEN on April 15, 2002. During the months of April and May 2002, which included a period during which Abu Zubaydah was on life support and unable to speak (Abu Zubaydah communicated primarily with FBI special agents in writing), Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations resulted in 95 intelligence reports. In February 2008, the CIA identified the “key intelligence and reporting derived” from Abu Zubaydah. The three items identified by the CIA were all acquired in April and May of 2002 by FBI interrogators. Abu Zubaydah was placed in isolation from June 18, 2002, to August 4, 2002, without being asked any questions. After 47 days in isolation, the CIA reinstituted contact with Abu Zubaydah at approximately 11:50 AM on August 4, 2002, when CIA personnel entered the cell, shackled and hooded Abu Zubaydah, and removed his towel, leaving Abu Zubaydah naked. Without asking any questions, CIA personnel made a collar around his neck with a towel and used the collar “to slam him against a concrete wall.” Multiple enhanced interrogation techniques were used non-stop until 6:30 PM, when Abu Zubaydah was strapped to the waterboard and subjected to the waterboard technique “numerous times” between 6:45 PM and 8:52 PM. The “aggressive phase of interrogation” using the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques continued for 20 days. (See Abu Zubaydah treatment chronology in Volume III.) During the months of August and September 2002, Abu Zubaydah’s reporting resulted in 91 intelligence reports, four fewer than the first two months of his CIA detention. (See Abu Zubaydah detainee review in Volume III.) Specifically, for information on Abu Zubaydah’s initial walling, see CIA email dated March 28, 2007, at 04:42 PM, with the subject line, “Subject detainee allegation—per our telcon of today,” which states that Abu Zubaydah claims “a collar was used to slam him against a concrete wall.” The CIA officer wrote, “While we do not have a record that this occurred, one interrogator at the site at the time confirmed that this did indeed happen. For the record, a plywood ‘wall’ was immediately constructed at the site after the walling on the concrete wall.” Regarding the CIA’s assessment of the “key intelligence” from Abu Zubaydah, 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 Muhammad (KSM)” (includes “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”).

1208.
On August 30, 2002, ███ CTC Legal, █████, met with NSC Legal Adviser John Bellinger to discuss Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. (See email from: John Rizzo; to: John Moseman; subject: Meeting with NSC Legal Adviser, 30 August 2002; date: September 3, 2002; ALEC ██, 052227Z SEP 02.) According to ███’s email documenting the meeting, he “noted that we had employed the walling techniques, confinement box, waterboard, along with some of the other methods which also had been approved by the Attorney General,” and “reported that while the experts at the site and at Headquarters were still assessing the product of the recent sessions, it did appear that the current phase was producing meaningful results.” (See email from: John Rizzo; to: John Moseman; subject: Meeting with NSC Legal Adviser, 30 August 2002; date: September 3, 2002.) The email did not provide any additional detail on what was described to Bellinger with respect to either the use of the techniques or the “results” of the interrogation. It is unclear from CIA records whether the CIA ever informed the NSC legal adviser or anyone else at the NSC or the Department of Justice that Abu Zubaydah failed to provide information about future attacks against the United States or operatives tasked to commit attacks in the U.S., during or after the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques.

1209.
ALEC ██ (181439Z OCT 02).

1210.
These representations were eventually included in the President’s September 6, 2006, speech, in which the President stated: “We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking . . . so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures . . . Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th.” These representations were also made to the Committee. On September 6, 2006, Director Hayden testified that, “faced with the techniques and with the prospects of what he did not know was coming, Abu Zubaydah decided that he had earned the burden as far as Allah had required him to carry it and that he could put the burden down and cooperate with his interrogators.” (See transcript of briefing, September 6, 2006 (DTS#2007-1336).) Director Hayden’s Statement for the Record for an April 12, 2007, hearing stated that: “[a]fter the use of these techniques, Abu Zubaydah became one of our most important sources of intelligence on al-Qa’ida.” See statement for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from CIA Director Hayden, for April 12, 2007, hearing (DTS #2007-1563).

1211.
Italics in original document. CIA Memorandum Bradbury at Office of Legal Counsel Department of Justice, dated March 2, 2005, from ████, ██ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, subject “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.”

1212.
Among other documents, see Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda dated May 30, 2005, and July 20, 2007. The July 20, 2007, memorandum—now declassified—states (inaccurately) that: “Interrogations of Zubaydah—again, once enhanced techniques were employed—revealed two al Qaeda operatives already in the United States and planning to destroy a high rise apartment building and to detonate a radiological bomb in Washington, D.C.” See Volume II, specifically the section on the “Thwarting of the Dirty Bomb/Tall Buildings Plot” and the capture of Jose Padilla, for additional details concerning the inaccuracies of this statement.

1213.
███ 10091 (210959Z APR 02). Despite requests by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA has never corrected the record on this assertion. On September 8, 2008, the Committee submitted Questions for the Record (QFRs) to the CIA from a hearing on the legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program. Because of time constraints, the CIA agreed “to take back several questions from Members that [the CIA was] unable to answer at the hearing.” On the topic of the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, the Committee asked “Why was this information [related to Padilla], which was not obtained through the use of EITs, included in the ‘Effectiveness Memo?’” CIA records provided for this review contain completed responses to these Questions for the Record. The CIA’s answer to this question was: “[███CTC Legal █████] simply inadvertently reported this wrong. Abu Zubaydah provided information on Jose Padilla while being interrogated by the FBI (███ 10091).” The Committee never received this response, despite numerous requests. Instead, the CIA responded with a letter dated October 17, 2008, stating that the “CIA has responded to numerous written requests for information from SSCI on this topic [the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program],” and that “[w]e are available to provide additional briefings on this issue to Members as necessary.” In a letter to CIA Director Michael Hayden, Chairman Rockefeller wrote, “[t]he CIA’s refusal to respond to hearing Questions for the Record is unprecedented and is simply unacceptable.” Senator Feinstein wrote a separate letter to CIA Director Michael Hayden stating, “I want you to know that I found the October 17, 2008 reply . . . appalling.” The CIA did not respond. (See: (1) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Questions for the Record submitted to CIA Director Michael Hayden on September 8, 2008, with a request for a response by October 10, 2008 (DTS #2008-3522); (2) CIA document prepared in response to “Questions for the Record” submitted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on September 8, 2008; (3) letter from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, dated October 29, 2008, to CIA Director Michael Hayden (DTS #2008-4217); (4) letter from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, dated October 29, 2008, to CIA Director Michael Hayden (DTS #2008-4217); and (5) letter from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee member, Dianne Feinstein, dated October 30, 2008, to CIA Director Michael Hayden (DTS#2008-4235).) In February 2004, a senior CIA officer wrote: “AZ never really gave ‘this is the plot’ type of information. He claimed every plot/operation he had knowledge of and/or was working on was only preliminary. (Padilla and the dirty bomb plot was prior to enhanced and he never really gave actionable to get them).” See email from: █████; to: █████, cc: [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], █████, John P. Mudd, [
REDACTED
], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], Jose Rodriguez, [REDACTED], [REDACTED], █████; subject: Please Read—Re CTC Response to the Draft IG Report; date: February 10, 2004).