Maybe these newly declassified affidavits and depositions taken during the official investigation into Abu Ghraib can illuminate the Koran abuse mystery a little more. The following deposition is interesting because it is by a U.S. interrogator, not an inmate, and refers to a technique within the military-approved term “Pride and Ego Down” that was apparently already in use. Here’s the first deposition, dated 5/21/04. It is from someone who was
“part of a five person Mobile Training Team from Fort Huachuca, AZ. The mission of my team was to provide an overall assessment of interrogation operations, training and advice and assistance. My focus was interrogation operations … The Intelligence Rules of Engagement (IROE) was posted and was very similar to that IROE used in Afghanistan. During my observation of interrogation operations, the 519th demonstrated experience and dedication to the mission. Most techniques required a very specific written plan with a schedule and parameters. The MP’s appeared to be in control and professional I did see detainees in various states of undress to include nakedness and detainees wearing towels. The MP’s used segregation and stripping as a way to keep the detainees under control and to keep them from talking. On one occasion, I had a conversation with XXXXX, concerning the IROE and interrogation approaches. I gave him examples of approaches including Pride and Ego Down where an interrogator took a Koran, threw it on the floor and stepped on it and Fear Up Harsh where the interrogator had a dog trained to bark on cue if the interrogator thought the detainee was lying. I also explained sleep deprivation. I told him that in Afghanistan the interrogators could use an adjusted sleep schedule for detainees. The conversation was meant to explain why these activities were prohibited or restricted.
This is a little confusing. The person seems to be conflating approved and unapproved techniques – monitored sleep deprivation (approved) and Koran abuse (barred) respectively – and then saying that she was detailing them to show why they “were prohibited or restricted.” Both? Why? A subsequent deposition, which appears to be by the same person (but might not be) was taken on 06/30/04. Here’s the money quote:
I told him of a story I heard in Afghanistan of a dog used during an interrogation. The dog was trained to bark on cue and would bark any time the interrogator had reason to believe the detainee was lying during the interrogation. I told him this would probably not be allowed but that the presence of barking dogs in the prison might be effective. I told him of a story of an interrogator using and Pride and Ego Down approach. The interrogator took a copy of the Koran and threw it on the ground and stepped on the Koran, which resulted in a detainee riot. .. I never personally witnessed the above incidents, but heard about them from other interrogation facility personnel…
I don’t know what to make of this. The witness seems to be saying that s/he was referring to methods that were not authorized, and then s/he says they had already been used in Afghanistan. We may here be seeing part of the confusion in policy that helped make Bagram, Abu Ghraib and the torture in Basra, Tikrit and elsewhere possible, confusion for which no one has been held accountable.
The Dish 