Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Latest in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Annals of the Trump Administration

Annals of the Trump Administration #5: Would Waterboarding Count as "Force," and Must It Be Disclosed?

Katherine Hawkins at the Constitution Project tweeted some good points in response to my earlier posts on Trump, interrogation, and waterboarding (here and here). One concerns the possibility that the NDAA FY'15 in fact does prohibit a Field Manual amendment that would include waterboarding.

Annals of the Trump Administration

Annals of the Trump Administration #3: Refusing to Add Waterboarding to the Field Manual?

In a prior post I discussed the Trump administration's apparent interest in reviving waterboarding as an interrogation method, noted that a federal statute forbids resort to any interrogation method not listed in the relevant Army Field Manual, and explained that the Trump administration might try to overcome that barrier by pushing to have the manual amended to include a classified annex authorizing waterboarding.

Case Coverage: 9/11 Case

2/18 Session: Trying to Finish Classification Review “Within the Lives of Living Men” and Zero Dark Thirty Discovery

The commission is called to order with four defendants present (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al Hawsawi) and one conspicuously absent (Walid bin Attash.) Judge Pohl begins the session by swearing in an unnamed Army Major to confirm that bin Attash voluntarily waived his right to be present.

After a brief moment of confusion related to Appellate Exhibit (AE) 408 - or is it 408A? – everyone gets on the same page and realizes that it’s just bin Attash’s waiver form for today, as opposed to the one from yesterday’s session.

Interrogation: CIA Program

What's in the CIA's Note to the Reader on the SSCI Torture Report?

When the Senate Intelligence Committee initially released its Study on the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program in December 2014, the CIA quietly released a Note to the Reader along with its Fact Sheet, statement from Director John Brennan, and June 2013 Response to a draft of the SSCI Study.

Interrogation: CIA Program

A Reply to Amy Zegart on the SSCI Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program

I was extremely disappointed to read Professor Amy Zegart’s post regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee’s study of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. Not only did it include factually inaccurate statements, it also appeared to blame the Committee for the impediments imposed on the Study by the Executive Branch.

My staff has compiled a detailed description of the inaccurate and misleading statements included in Ms. Zegart’s post, which appears below.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle