The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (95 page)

1394.
Reporting indicates that the al-Ghuraba group was similar to the Pan Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS)’s Masapakindo, aka Pakindo, organization. Masran bin Arshad was connected to Pakindo, and while in foreign government custody, explained that “in 1991, PAS [Pan Islamic Party of Malaysia] established a secret Malaysian Student Association known as ‘Masapakindo’ to help facilitate a steady pipeline of PAS religious and military trainees traveling from Malaysia to Pakistan, sometimes continuing on to Afghanistan, but ultimately returning to Malaysia. This student association for children of PAS members also was intended to serve as a general support structure for PAS students who were undergoing Islamic religious training in Pakistan and India. Masapakindo’s headquarters was based in Karachi, Pakistan.”
See also
February 27, 2004, Memorandum for CIA Inspector General from James L. Pavitt, CIA Deputy Director for Operations, entitled “Comments to Draft IG Special Review, Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Program,” which contains a February 24, 2004, attachment entitled, “Successes of CIA’s Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities.”
See also
CIA Intelligence Product entitled, “Jemaah Islamiya: Counterterrorism Scrutiny Limiting Extremist Agenda in Pakistan,” dated April 18, 2008. Although this report makes numerous references to the al-Ghuraba group, it does not reference the group’s potential engagement in KSM’s Second Wave attack. As described in this summary, and in greater detail in Volume II, contrary to CIA representations, a wide body of intelligence reporting indicates that the al-Ghuraba group was not “discovered” as a result of KSM’s reporting, norwas the al-Ghuraba group “tasked” with, or witting of, any aspect of KSM’s “Second Wave” plotting.
See also
KSM and Hambali reporting from October 2003, and the intelligence chronology in Volume II, to include [REDACTED] 45915 (141431Z SEP 03).

1395.
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. The memorandum states: “Use of enhanced techniques, however, led to critical, actionable intelligence such as the discovery of the Guraba Cell, which was tasked with executing KSM’s planned Second Wave attacks against Los Angeles.”

1396.
References to the “Second Wave” attacks appeared in public news reports shortly after September 11, 2001, sometimes in reference to Zacarias Moussaoui. See, for example,
The Washington Post
, “Suspected Planner of 9/11 Attacks Captured in Pakistan after Gunfight” (09/14/2002) (“Some investigators have theorized that Moussaoui, whose laptop computer contained information about crop dusting, may have been part of a second wave of terror attacks or a back-up plan instead.”);
The New York Post
, “2nd Plot Tied to Moussaoui” (09/06/2002) (“French officials reportedly are claiming that Zacarias Moussaoui was never meant to be the ‘20th’ hijacker’ but was to be part of a ‘second wave’ of terror.”);
The Los Angeles Times
, “Officials Skeptical as Detainees Say Sept. 11 was First in a Trio” (10/01/2002) (“The Sept. 11 attacks may have been planned as the first of three terrorist strikes in the United States, each progressively bigger and more devastating than the last, U.S. officials said Monday, citing recent interviews with captured Al Qaeda operatives . . . Since days after Sept. 11, authorities have said they were concerned about a possible ‘second wave’ of attacks.”). Similarly, on May 6, 2006, an affidavit filed by Moussaoui stated, “I was part of another al-Qaeda plot which was to occur after September 11, 2001.”

1397.
A November 21, 2005,
Newsweek
article entitled, “The Debate Over Torture,” referenced a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stating that “enhanced interrogation techniques” worked with KSM to thwart an al-Qa’ida terrorist plot, which the magazine indicated was the “Second Wave” plot. The article included the following: “A career CIA official involved with interrogation policy cautioned
Newsweek
not to put too much credence in such claims. ‘Whatever briefing they got was probably not truthful,’ said the official, who did not wish to be identified discussing sensitive matters.”

1398.
Italics in original. March 2, 2005, Memorandum for Steve Bradbury from ██████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, document entitled, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.”

1399.
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 was “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 OLC] 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 CIA] 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.”

1400.
Italics added. “DCIA Talking Points: Waterboard 06 November 2007,” dated November 6, 2007, with the notation the document was “sent to DCIA Nov. 6 in preparation for POTUS meeting.” CIA records indicate that Hambali was not subjected to the CIA’s waterboard technique.

1401.
March 2, 2005, Memorandum for Steve Bradbury from ███████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, document entitled, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.” Under a section entitled, “Results,” the CIA “Effectiveness Memo” states that the “CIA’s use of DOJ-approved enhanced interrogation techniques, aspart of a comprehensive interrogation approach, has enabled CIA to disrupt terrorist plots, capture additional terrorists, and collect a high volume of critical intelligence on al-Qa’ida. We believe that intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

1402.
Italics in original.

1403.
Italics added. March 2, 2005, Memorandum for Steve Bradbury from ███████, ███ Legal Group, DCI Counterterrorist Center, document entitled, “Effectiveness of the CIA Counterterrorist Interrogation Techniques.” The same representation can be found in multiple documents, including “Briefing for Chief of Staff to the President Josh Bolten; CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Programs,” dated May 2, 2006; as well as “Talking Points for 10 March 2005 DCI Meeting PC: Effectiveness of the High-Value Interrogation (HVDI) Techniques,” dated March 2, 2005.

1404.
Italics added. 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 Maybe Used in the Interrogation of High Value Al Qaeda Detainees. The memorandum states: “It is this paramount interest [the security of the nation] that the Government seeks to vindicate through the interrogation program. Indeed, the program, which the CIA believes ‘has been a key reason why al-Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001,’ directly furthers that interest, producing substantial quantities of otherwise unavailable actionable intelligence. As detailed above, ordinary interrogation techniques had little effect on either KSM or Zubaydah. Use of enhanced techniques, however, led to critical, actionable intelligence such as the discovery of the Guraba Cell, which was tasked with executing KSM’s planned Second Wave attacks against Los Angeles.”

1405.
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.

1406.
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.

1407.
See detailed reporting in the Second Wave / Al-Ghuraba Group intelligence chronology in Volume II of the Study, including ██████████████████████████████ and ██████████████████████████████.