Army Memo re: Assessment of Division and Forwarding Collection Points

AFZB-IG 15 SEP 03
MEMORANDUM FOR CDR, 101st ABN DIV (AASLT)
SUBJECT: Assessment of Division and Forward Collection Points
1.
PURPOSE. To evaluate the process of detainee operations in the Division to ensure compliance with appropriate regulations and laws.

2.
SCOPE. The Inspector General aG) inspected the Division Central Collection Point (DCCP) as well as all three of the Brigade Combat Teams' Forward Collection Points (FCP). The IG also assessed the process for the tracldng, reporting, and disposition of detainees in the Division.

3.
FOCUS. Special Inspection.

4.
REFERENCES.

a. AR 190-8, Enemy Prisoner of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees, 1 OCT 97.
b.
FM 3-19.40, Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations, AUG 2001.

c.
FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, JUL 1956, with Change 1, jUL 1976.

d.
FM 21-10, Field Hygiene and Sanitation, JUN 2000.

e.
FM 4-25.12, Unit Field Sanitation Team, JAN 2002.

FRAGOs 209, 234, 415, and 519 to CJTF-7 OPORD 03-036.
g. FRAGOs 091, 129, 162, 200 to 101st ABN DIV OPORD 20-04 (Eagle Victory).
5. OBJECTIVE #1. Determine if handling and treatment of EPWs/detainees is reasonably adequate for up to 21 days of detention (or maximum amount of days the detainees are held in a particular facility). Sub-Objectives:
1.1. Assess medical and sanitation conditions for the collection facilities.
1.2. Assess facilities for sufficient protection from the elements.
1.3. Assess accommodations for religious practices.
1.4. Assess response plans for family inquiries.
1.5. Assess treatment of detainees.
FOR OFFICI E ONLY 1 This docum tains
DissemIn s prohibited informati PT FROM except orized by MANDAT ISCLOSURE AR 20-1
under A; Exemption 5
£3E38

AF'ZB-IG SUBJECT: Assessment of Division and Forward Collection Points
4. OBJECTIVE 42. Determine if protection and security is sufficient for a Division Central Collection Point (DCCP) or Forward Collection Point (FCP) IAW FM3-19.40. Sub-Objectives:
2.1. Assess security measures.
2.2. Assess segregation of detainees.
2.3. Assess safeguarding of detainees.
2.3. Assess training of guard forces.
5. OBJECTIVE #3. Determine the efficiency of the accountability, reporting, tracking and disposition of EPW/detainees. Sub-Objectives:
3.1. Assess initial processing and reporting of detainees.
3.2. Assess decision support criteria for disposition of detainees.
6.
O'VERALL ASSESSMENT. The DCCP and the three FCP's are accomplishing their mission and providing at least the minimum requirements for htunanitarian care =I treatment in accordance with Army regulations and policies and international treaties and conventions. However, we need rnore emphasis on medical and sanitation considerations in the collection points, and in some cases we need to reduce the time detainees are held in the collection points. The detailed findings and recommendations are enclosed.

7.
POC is the undersigned at DNVT (9Arg

8.
Air Assault!

End MAJ, Inspector General
FOR OFFICI SE ONLY 2 This docum ntains Dissemina prohibited Information MPT FFtOM except as mixed by MANDAT ISCLOSURE AR 20-1 under tit IA; Exemption 5
p889
Results of IG Assessment of DCCP/FCP Operations
1. PREFACE.
a. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, describes Collection Points (CP) as temporary areas designed to hold captives until they are removedfrom the battlefield Fonvard CPs [FCP] are positioned as far forward as possibk to accept captives from maneuver elements. Central CPs for DCCP] accept captives from fonvard CP's and local units.
During our consultation with SJA experts on the
io (0-3
The most
applicable standard we can find for DCCP/FCP operation is in AR 190-8, where it describes the
overarching U.S. policy that, "all persons captured, detained, interned, or otherwise held in

U.S. Armed Forces custody during the course of a conflict will be given humanitarian care
and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of U.S. forces until final release or
repatriation".

c. With the above standard as our primary reference, we focused our IG assessment vvith two guiding questions in mind:
(1)
What are reasonable standards for humanitarian care and treatment of detainees based on the mIrg____

Int amount offline we could expect to hold them in a collection point?

(2)
What efficiency improvements do we need to minimize detainee processing time in our collection points?

d. We began this assessment with a clear understanding that, as with the life support of our
U.S. and coalition forces, there is always an evolution process to establishing detainment facilities. During our inspections we found doctunentary evidence of significant improvements in the collection point facilities since their inception, and several statements of work and supply requisitions to further improve living conditions. The IG findings and recommendations in this report serve to achieve and sustain reasonable standards within the next 30-90 days, based on our
current level of progress.
2. OBJECTIVE #1. Determine ff handling and treatment of detainees is reasonably adequate for up to 21 days of detention (or maximum amount of days the detainees are held in a particular facility).
a. Sub-Objective 1.1. Assess medical and sanitation conditions for the collection facilities.
FOR OFFICI E ONLY
3 This docum tainsDiseemin prohibited information PT FROM except rized by
MANDAT ISCLOSUREAR 20-1 under th A; Exemption 5
890
DA IG
Results of IG Assessment of DCCP/FCP Operations
1. PREFACE.
a. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, describes Collection Points (CP) as temporary areas designed to hold captives until they are removedfrom the battlefield Forward CPs [FCPJ are positioned as-far forward as possible to accept captives from maneuver elements. Central CPs for DCCPJ accept captivesfrotn forward CP's and local units.
12(0-3 The most applicable standard we can find for DCCP/FCP operation is in AR 190-8, where it describes the overarching U.S. policy that, "all persons captured, detained, interned, or othersvise held in
U.S.
Armed Forces custody during the course of a conflict will be given humanitarian care
and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of U.S. forces until final release or
repatriation".

c.
With the above standard as our primary reference, we focused our IG assessment vvith two
guiding questions in mind:

(1) What are reasonable standards for humanitarian care and treatment of detainees based
on the mminli___

Im amount of time we could expect to hold them in a collection point?
(2) What efficiency improvements do we need to minimize detainee processing time in
our collection points?

d. We began this assessment with a clear understanding that, as with the life support of our
U.S. and coalition forces, there is always an evolution process to establishing detaimnentfacilities. During our inspections we found documentary evidence of significant improvements in the collection point facilities since their inception, and several statements of work and supply requisitions to further improve living conditions. The IG fmdings and recommerlidations in this report serve to achieve and sustain reasonable standards within the next 30-90 days, based on our
current level of progress.
2. OBJECTIVE #1. Determine ff handling and treatment of detainees is reasonably adequate for up to 21 days of detention (or maximum amount of days the detainees are held in a particular facility).
a. Sub-Objective 1.1. Assess medical and sanitation conditions for the collectionfacilities.
FOR OFFICI E ONLY
3 This docum tainsDissemin prohibited information PT FROMexcept rixed by MANDAT ISCLOSUREAR 20-1 under th A; Exemption 5
tP 8 9 0
(1)
Finding. We need more emphasis on the health and hygiene standards for detainees.

(2)
Standards.

(a) FM 3-19.40 chapter 3 states that wounded and sick captives receive medical treatment, and captives who require lifesaving medical attention are evacuated to the nearest medical facility... Prevent captives from incurring disease and nonbattle injuries (DNBI) (heat and cold irsiuries or communicable disease) while in captivity. Isolate captives who exhibit obvious siins of disease (diarrhea, vomiting, or fever) until medical personnel make an evatation. Ifa large number of captives appear ill, notibl medical and command channels for imrtedicne action/treatment... The U.S. provides the same medical care for wounded and sick cailtives as it does for its own forces and allied soldiers. The degree of medical care, not status (such as EPW or CI), determines the disposition of wounded soldiers.
(b)FM 21-10, chapter 3, states that the commanders plans for personal hygiene include providing shower/bathing facilities in the field- All personnel must bathe at least once a week and have a clean change of clothing to reduce the health hazard associated with body lice.
(3) Results.
(a)Medical Screening. We found the DCCP and all three FCPs the guards and or medical personnel are screening the detainees for obvious illness, disease, or injury during their in processing to the facility. For example, on the day we visited the DCCP the Sergeant of the Guard was aware of four detainees who had potentially serious illnesses (diabetes, asthma, tuberculosis, and heart disease). Medical personnel had screened these four detainees and the guards were administering their prescription medications at the appropriatetime and dosage. We did have difficulty determining what, if any, medical screening questions are asked during the initial processing into the facilities, because we found no standard screening checklists or questionnaires at any of the four collections points.
(b)Field Sanitation. In some cases, the health and field sanitation standards are not Ed a level commensurate to our present standards for coalition forces during this phase of the operation. The following are some of the issues relating health and hygiene at the collection points:
•
Two facilities that have record of keeping detainees for up to 21 days do not have a means for the detainees to take a shower or wash/change their clothing.

•
One facility provides a water spigot for-a wash point, but there is no soakage pit or drainage system to absorb the significant amount of standing "gray" water.

•
One facility had no hand wash point for detainees to wash their hands after using the latrine and to perform daily personal hygiene.

•
None of the facilities offered toothbrush and toothpaste for daily oral hygiene.

FOR OFFICI SE ONLY 4 This doc t contains
Diesemina is prohibited intonn EXEMPT FROM except as larked by MAN RY DISCLOSURE AR 20-1 e FOIA; Exemption 5
DA IG
P89 1

• Other than water sampling, there had been little in terms of Preventive Medicine or Field Sanitation Team inspections on the DCCP following two inspections by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (NOTE: The IG requested the DMOC to conduct a preventive medicine inspection of the DCCP, which they completed on 6 SEP).
(c) flo___:
ftg. To reduce the risk of health hazards, additional clothing or uniforms for the detainees is a worthy consideration, especially at facilities vvhere they are held for more than a week. Even if detainees are given the soap and water to wash their own clothes, they have nothing to change into during the process. At the DCCP we heard vignettes where previously injured detainees get released from the CSH wearing only the paper, hospital over-garznents because their bloodied clothing had to be destroyed. The DCCP does not have any clothing/uniforms or footwear to provide detainees in these circumstances.
(4) Recommendations.
(a)
The IG recommends the G3 publish a FRAGO that directs the following for the DCCP and FCP facilities in the Division:

•
BSA/DSA Commanders ensure Preventive Medicine Teams conduct health and sanitation surveys of the DCCP/FCPs facilities at least monthly and assist Facility Conunanders with resolving any health and sanitation issues.

•
The collection points should be equipped to manage the health and hygiene ne-eds of the detainees commensurate with the maximum amount of time they are held captiVe. Minimum equipment standards for detainment up to 6 days include a shelter that provides adequate protection from the elements, a latrine facility, a hand wash point, and appropriate materials for daily personal hygiene (ie., soap, toothbrush, toothpaste). Kminnun equipment standards for detainment of 7 or more days also include access to a shower facility and access to a wash point for detainees to launder their clothing.

(b)
The IG recommends the G4, in coordination with the DPMO, procure detainee uniforms (or suitable clothing items) for issue to the detainees to the numbers required by each of the DCCP/FCP commanders.

b. Sub-Objective 1.2. Assess facilities for sufficient protection from the elements.

(1)
Finding. Facilities are currently adequate for protection from the elements, however two of the three Brigade FCPs require a winterization plan.

(2) Standard. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, states that a FCP is. usually a guarde4 roped-off area (concertina or razor tape) or a secure fixed facility. The capture rate and the captive categories determine the size of the FCP. If possible use existing structure (vacant schools, apartments, and warehouses) to conserve resources and provide protection for captives. When
FOR OFFIC USE ONLY 5 This doc ntains Dissemin is prohibited informa EMPT FROM except rtzed by MANIA Y DISCLOSURE AR 20-1 . under FOIA; Exemption 5
P892

selecting a location consider the following: security, medical support, food, and potable water, field sanitation gatrine facilities), shelter, cover, crnd access routes... Like a FCP, a division
central CP is seldom located near the indigenous population. Use existing structures, when
available, to conserve resources. If structures are unavailable, construct the DCCP from similar
material as FCP. However, a DCCP is larger and must contain some type of tentage or shelter
to protect captives from the elements.
(3) Results.
a.
Sun protection. We found that all four facilities we inspected provide a sufficient amount of protection from the sun. The DCCP and one of the FCPs uses pole barns to provide shade and still allow a breeze. One of the FCPs is within a concrete building and another brigade uses existing bunlcers on the airfield to protect the detainees.

b.
Space. With the capture rates and average nutnber of days the facilities hold detainees, we determined that all the Division's collection facilities are "about right" in terms of sufficient space for detainees.

c.
Winterization Plans. The DCCP has both short and long term plans for winterization. In the short term they have work orders to build walls and windows on the existing pole barn facility so they can install stoves or heaters. The DCCPs long-term plan involves building a concrete, environmentally controlled structure on the opposite side of the airfield designed specifically for holding detainees. The design and contract is approved for groundbreaking to begin SEP 03, with expected completion in NOV03. With two of the FCPs we could not find current plans fer winterization. With the cold weather expected as early as late October to early November, is not too early to begin preparing the facilities for winter weather.

(4)
Recommendation. The IG reconunends facility commanders for the FCPs develop viable winterization plans and BSA Commanders/Mayors expedite required facility and equipment improvements for completion prior to 1NOV 04.

c. Sub-Objective 1.3. Assess accommodations for religious practices.
(1) Finding. There were no issues regarding religious practices.

(2)
Standard. AR 190-8, Chapter 1, states that EPW and Retained Personnel (RP) will enjoy latitude in the exercise of their religious practices, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.

(3)
Results. Sensing sessions conducted with detainees revealed no issues at all four collection points. Detainees are allowed to keep copies of the Koran and other religious materials (wi reason). Detainees are allowed to pray at their own discretion. Our interviews

FOR OFFICI ONLY 6 This docu ntains DIssemin rohiblted informati MPT FROM except as by MANDAT ISCLOSURE AR 20-1
under IA; Exemption 5
DA IG
P893

with a Muslim Chaplain in the Division, who often visits the DCCP, revealed no issues with the detainees and he said they have not requested religious services.
(4)
Recommendatians. Continue the command emphasis in the support of religious
practices.

d. Sub-Objective 1A. Assess plans for response to family member inquiries.

(1)
Finding. The DCCP and all 3 FCPs have viable plans for responses to family
member inquiries.

(2)
Standard. FRAGO 209 CJTF-7 OPORD 03-036 3.G.1.A states that units will direct family members of detainees seeldng information on detained relatives to the nearest Civil Affairs Operations Center (CMOC), HOC, or HACC

(3)
Results. One brigade does not keep detainees beyond 24 hours in their FCP and, therefore, gets few if any inquiries. One brigade posts a Est of detainees and their status each day at the front gate of the camp and at each battalion headquarters. One brigade sends the consolidated status report to their battalions in case of family inquiries. Families who inquire at the DREAR gate or call the Division Hotline are referred to Division CMOC where the Ministry ofJustice Office (MOJO) JAG representative responds to the inquiries.

(4)
Recommendations. Facility Commanders continue with viable and innovative ways, appropriate to their AO, to inform the family members that the detainees are safe and well.

e. Sub-Objective 1.5. Assess treatment of detainees.

(1)
Finding. The detainees had no major issues with their treatment, however they want food that is more in line with their cultural tastes and want the guards to provide them cigarettes.

(2) Standards.

a.
AR 190-8, Chapter 1, states that all persons captured detained interned or otherwise held in US. Armed Forces custody during the course of conflict will be given humanitarian care and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of US. forces until

final release or repatriation.
b. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, states that to safeguard captives according to the Geneva Conventions and US. policy...provide food and water. These supplies must be commensurate to those for U.S. and allied forces.
(3) Results. During our sensing session vvith detainees at two of the collections points (two of the FCPs were not holding any detainees during our inspection), the captives all expressed tha they had been treated well by the guard forces. They did complain the guards
FOR OFFIC SE ONLY 7 This docuin ntains
DIssemin Is prohibited intormatio MPT FROM except as orized by
MANDAT ISCLOSUREAR 20-1 under IA; Exemption 5
B 8 9 4
would not buy or provide them cigarettes (unless they had some on their person when captured) and they do not like the Meals Ready to Eat (MRE). Unlike internee facilities, collection points are not designed, or intended, to provide canteen items like tobacco products. At this stage of the operation, Facility Coznmanders should consider offering better quality of food, or food that is better suited the detainees' cultural tastes, such as the Dhabiha Halal Meals (MREs for strict Muslim diet).
(4) Recommendations. TheIG reconunends the DCCP/FCP Commanders provide rations commensurate to those being served to U.S. and allied forces and/or they provide Halal meals in lieu of the regular MRE.
3. OBJECTIVE #2. Determine if protection and security is sufficient for a Division Central Collection Point (DCP) or Forward Collection Point (FCP).
a. Sub-Objective 2.1. Assess security measures.
(1)
Finding. All collection points have adequate security measures to limit the possibility of escape.

(2)
Standards. FM3-19.40, Chapter 2, states that the [facility] commander establishes security measures that effectively control the housed personnel with minimal use offorce... The physical construction of the facility and the presence of guard personnel create the most obvious means of providing internal and external security.

(3)
Results. All facilities have adequate barrier material and concertina wire or use existing facilities such as a hardened building or concrete bunkers to securc the facility. 2 of4 facilities use MPs to secure their detainees and the other two facilities use the MPs in a close advisory role on security measures and training. All sites appear to have the right ratio of guards to the number of detainees. We found no issues with observation and lighting of the facilities. When we asked guards questions to detemzine their level of proficiency in searches, rules of engagement/use of force, and handling disturbances, they responded with quick, accurate answers. We fotmd that only one of the three FCPs have a written SOP that covers the security and guard force procedures.

(4)
Recommendation. The IG recommends the DPMO distribute a collection point SOP that covers standard procedurvs for searching, segregating, and safeguarding detainees that the FCPs can adapt to their own collection point operations. Also recotnmend Facility Conunanders continue to assess and improve security measures as needed.

b. Sub-Objective 2.2. Assess segregation of detainees.

(1)
Finding. Although there were not enough designated areas for each possible category of captive, there were ad hoc plans at each of the collection points to acconunodate further

segregation of detainees.
FOR OFFIC SE ONLY DIsseminati s prohibited except as orlzed by AR 20-1 8 This docu informati MANDAT under th ntsins PT FROM DISCLOSURE IA; Exemption 5

895
(2) Standards.
(a) FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, states that the OIC/NCOIC designates segregation procedures and levels to ensure the captives security, health and welfare. Segregate captives into the following categories: Officers, NC0s, and enlisted members (male and female); Civilian Internees and refugees: UE militar y prisoners.
(b)Eagle Victory FRAGO 91, states that while U.S. forces will apply the same standards of humanitarian treatment for all detainees, U.S. forces may, for operational and security reasons, class6 and segregate detainees based upon the following categories...
(3)
Results. In all four collections points the ability to segregide detainees is possible. For example, during the visit to the DCCP there were fotw detainees who were being segregated from the remainder of the population until tests for tuberculosis were complete. One brigade has two completely separate facilities to segregate the detainees accused of violating sovereign law from the detainees suspected of crimes against the coalition provisional authority. During interviews with facility commanders we could not find procedures for segregation of detainees when necessary (i.e. female captives or captives with infectious diseases). However, each of the facility conunanders had viable options and resources to further segregate detainees on a case-by-case basis.

(4) Recommendation. (Same reconunendation as for 2.1 above).
c. Sub-Objective 2.3. Assess the safeguarding of detainees.
(1) Finding. There are no issues with safeguarding of detainees at the DCCP and FCPs.

(2)
Standard. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 3, states that to safeguard captives according to the Geneva Conventions and the US policy—

•
Provide first aid cmd medical treatment for wounded and sick captives. Evacuate them through medical channels, using the assets available to evacuate US and allied forces.

•
Provide food and water. These supplies must be coiranensurate to those for U.S and allied forces.

•
Provide firm, humane treatment.

•
Allow captives to use protective equipment in case of hostile fire or NBC threat.

•
Protect captives from abuse by other captives and local civilians.

•
Report acts and allegations of inhumane treatment through MP channels.

•
Do not locate captives near obvious targets (ammunition sites, fuel facilities, and communications equipment.)

(3)
Results. At all four facilities, we found there are adequate measures in place to mitigate risks that interfere with the safety of detainees. We found at all the facilities were located either within berms, buildings or btmkers to protect against hostile fire, as well as

FOR OFFIC E ONLY 9 This docu ntains
Dissemin prohibited informati DAFT FFt0N1 except es orized by MANDAT DISCLOSURE AR 20-1 under t 01A; Exemption 5
DA IG
3896

observation and photography from curiosity-seekers. Ample amounts of food and water are available for consumption. We found competent medical staff is treating sick and wounded captives within a reasonable amo-unt offline. None of the collection points are located near obvious targets.
(4) Recommendation. (Same recommendation as for 2.1 above).
d. Sub-Objective 2.4. Assess training of guard forces.
(1) Finding. Guard forces have received minimal training for handling of detainees but more can be done in terms of sustainment training and training documentation at the brigade FCP sites.
(2) Standard. IAW FM 3-19.40, Chapter 2, states that personnel assigned or attached to FR facilities are trained on the care and control of housed personnel. They are fidly cognizant ofthe provisions of the Geneva and UN Conventions and the applicable regulations as they apply to the treatment of housed personnel.
(3) Results.
(a) The DCCP and 1 of 3 FCPs are using military police soldiers for their guard force. The remaining two fitcilities are guarded by FSB soldiers where commanders provide them additional training on the use of force, searches, cultural customs and habits, and rules of engagement and interaction. We could not &id the training proficiency documented at the FCP sites, but there was good workina knowledge on the part of those we interviewed. A few of the facility leaders expressed a need for more sustainment training to maintain the guards' proficiency.
(b)The DCCP's SOP covers guard force training and the Platoon Sergeant has documented training on the following topics:
•
Use of Force

•
Rules of Engagement

•
Principles and Laws Of Land Warfare.

•
Cultural Customs and Habits.

•
Basic Local Language (Basic Commands),

•
Minimum Use of Force

•
Unarmed Self-Defense Techniques

•
Non-Lethal Weapons/Equipment

•
Riot Control

•
First Aid

•
Individual Weapons Training/Qualification

•
Display Understanding of The SOP.
Geneml Orders (FM 22-6)

FOR OFFIC SE ONLY 10 This docum ntains Diesemin prohibited informed° MPT FROM except rtzed by MANDAT DISCLOSURE
AR 20-1 under 01A; Exemption 5
897
(4) Recommendation. The IG recommends that the DPMO distribute examples of collection point SOPs and guard force training programs to each of the Brigades' FCPs. Also recommend Facility Conunanders create training records thr each of the guards and document their training proficiency (i.e. T, P, U assessments).
4. OBJECTIVE #3. Determine the efficiency of the accountability, reporting, and tracking and of detainees.
a. Sub-Objective 3.1. Assess intake procedures and reporting of detainees.
(1)
Finding. Initial processing of detainees is being accomplished 1AW appropriate doctrine found in FM 3-19.40 and appropriate FRAGO's.

(2) Standards.

(a)
FM 3-19.40 Chapter 3, states that when a captive arrives at a collection point, he is processed by the STRESS' method The basic principles are search, tag, report, evacuate, segregate, and safeguard

(b)
101 st FRAGO 129, to OPORD 20-04, states that capturing units must complete CPA Forces Apprehension Forms before transferring custody of detainees to any other unit or to a detention facility... DA 2823 (sworn statements) may still be a part of this form as enclosures if statements are necessary... Except for murder, rape, kidnapping, cadacking, robbery, arson, assault, burglary, larceny or destruction of property with a value in excess of $500, or conspiracy, solicitation or acting as an accomplice to one of these offenses, individuals without completed CPA Forces Apprehension Forms will not be processed into the' detention facilities. In those cases in which the detention facility accepts detainees without a completed CPA Forces Apprehension Form, the capturing unit must submit a completed CPA Forces Apprehension Form within 24 hours after acceptance.

(c)
101st FRAGO 200, to OPORD 20-04 states that all BCTs are responsible to properly fill out and transfer the CPA apprehension form with detained persons. Each BCT is additionally responsible for the initial screening of detained personnel upon arrival at their brigade collection points.

(3)
Results. Though we found no written standardized checklists for intalce of captives at any of the facilities, we fotmd every facility is processing the detainees using the forms specified in CJTF and Division FRAGO's and appropriate doctrine. Below are the results of by the processing principle of STRESS.

(a)
Search. All facilities search the detainees upon arrival and have the ability for same gender searches when necessary. We fou.nd good knowledge on the part of the guard force on what items-can be retained, impounded, or confiscated. The MI interrogators are making the determinations n which confiscated items have intelligence value and process the items for

FOR OFFI Dissernin SE ONLY is prohibited 11 This docu inform contains E PT FROM
except mixed by MANDAT CLOSURE
AR 20-1 under Exemption 6

further exploitation. Though we only inspected the procedures for property accountability at the DCCP, we found no issues. The captives keep copies of the receipts for all impounded items talcen from them.
(b)
All the facilities are checking to ensure the capture tags (DD 2745) for detainees and captured equipment are filled out properly during in processing. Because the capture tag cards wear easily, the DCCP also issues a plastic, zip-lock bracelet to the detainees with their capture tag number inscribed on it.

(c)
Report. Each facility NCOIC verifies the information contained in the CPA Apprehension Form as well as the DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) for accuracy and completion.

•
Upon receipt of detainees at the DCCP, the Sergeant of the Guard (SOG) notifies both the DPMO and the CI Team (co-located with the DCCP). After in processing, the SOG prepares a detainee file with all the appropriate form and sends it to the DPMO. The DPMO adds the information to the Division's detainee database for tracicing and reporting to the MI and G2 channels. Meanwhile, the CI Team to begin the interrogation process and creates the intelligence Screening Report (SR) file. During the interrogation process they will sometimes send up SPOT reports to the HOC in the form of CI Intelligence Reports (CIR) and Intelligence Information Reports (IIR). Once the SR is complete the CI Team sends the report to the HUMINT Operations Center (HOC) at 311th MI where it is further analyzed, entered into a database, and reported to the G2X at the D-Main to review recommendations. The G2 posts their database information to the website on Eagle Web to share with the staff and brigades, and recommends to DPMO to either release, evacuate to Corps, or keep on "Intel Hold" status.

•
At the brigade-level FCPs, we found their processes for reporting and tracking are very similar to the Division's. When detainees are captured because they are security risk or suspected of plotling attacks against the coalition, the MI company interrogators send their screening reports to the Brigade S2 who recommends to the BCT Commander (or in one unit's case, the BDE S3) to release, evacuate to the DCCP, or keep on "Intel Hold". We found that only 2 of the 3 BCT's send reports of their detainees to Division PMO and G2, however the DPMO is actively worlcing to get the remaining BCT to report their detainee status because it has recently become a DiVision Commander requirement for the DPMO to brief it in the Battle Update Briefs.

(d)Evacuation. See Sub-Objective 3.2 for re- lated fmdings on evacuation.
(e) Segregation. See Sub-Objective 2.2.
FOR OFFIC.71,SE ONLY ntains
12 This docUm Dissemin is prohibited information MPT FFIOM
except a (Aced by MANDATO DISCLOSURE
AR 20-1 • under th IA; Exemption 6
DA IG
899

(f) Safeguard. See Sub-Objective 2.3.
(4)
Recommendation. The IG reconunends the DPMO, in coordination with G2, SJA and DIV SURGEON, develop standardized intake procedures for collection points and distribute checklists to the DCCP/FCP to include as an azmex to their SOP.

c. Sub-Objective 3.2. Assess decision support criteria for processing of detainees.

(1)
Finding. Without a formal review process during the early days of captivity,
detainees may be spending unnecessary time in captivity.

(2)
Standard. FM 3-19.40, Chapter 2, states, move captives from the combat zone as quickly as possible. The intent is to move themfrom the division CPs to an YR facility. The goal is for higher echelons to go forward to lower echelons and evacuate captives to the rear... Captives should not remain at the central CP more than 24 hours before being evacuated to the Corps Holding Area (CHA).

(3)
Results. Because of the time it talces to vet detainees and arrange logistical movements to the CJTF-7 Intenunent Facility in Baghdad, the 24 hour standard in FM 3-19.40 is not realistic in many cases. However, when we looked at cases where detainees are held in a FCP/DCCP for more than 72 hours, we found that most of their time spent in captivity has less to do with vetting, evidence gathering, or arranging transportation as it does with the time it takes to make a decision on where to send the detainees. Eagle Victory FRAGO 91 states, "Initial detention we be automatically taminated si 21 days, imless a review is conducted by military magistrate or competent legal authority as designated by V Corps or Division StaffJudge Advocate." Because 21 days is the first target for review of probable cause for continued detainment, the current system lacks stimulus to process detainees sooner. '

a.
To analyze the efficiency of the process, on 4 SEP 03 we pulled the captured tag numbers from seven of the detainees located in the FCCP who had been detained in the facility since 26 AUG (10 days). During our interviews with the counter-intelligence (CI) staff at the DCCP, we examined the intelligence screening reports (SR) on these satne seven captives and found the following:

• 11111.was detained for association to Baath Party. Remarks on SR state, "Detainee does not appear to be of further intel value". The last entry on the SR was 6t(')-LI • 29 AUG 03 (6 days). CI does not plan to conduct further interrogations.
detained for possible connection to FRL. He is a university professor mher was a former ambassador. Remarks on the SR state, "Detainee is of no
illPgttiasfurther intel value." Date of last entry on the SR was 29 AUG 03 (6 days).
• Illavas detained for intelligence on an attack against coalition forces. Date of
ast entry on the SR report was 29 AUG 03 (6 days). Remarks on the SR state, "Detainee of no further intel value at this time."
FOR OFFIC SE ONLY 13 This docu tains
Dissemin is prohibited info PT FROM
except orized by MANDAT ISCLOSURE
AR 20-1 under A; Exemption 5
900
DA IG

were relatives of a member on the Division Black List. The remarks on the SR recommended "further exploitation of intelligence". The last entry for all three SRs was on 30 AUG 03 (5 days), but when we talked to the CI team or the HOC, it was not clear as to who would conduct the finther exploitation and when.
A• was detained for association to Baath Party. The date of last modification to tl
itielliwas 30 AUG 03 (5 days). The remarks on the SR state, "Detainee may be of
intel value at the brigade level."
b.
During our interviews with the DPMO, HOC, and G2X we could not find consistent explanations on how the above detainees will be processed and when. There appears to be no standard procedure for how intelligence reconunendations become decisions and how quickly these decisions should happen.

c.
The chart below (FIG. I) is an excerpt from the DPMO's SOP on the detainee process for the Division. One FCP and the DCCP have records of detainees for up to 21 days. When we examined the detainee process at brigade and division levels, it is very difficult to find a good reason for a detainee to be held captive in a collection facility for that long. The intelligence officers and NCOs we interviewed told us that more often than not, they know within the first 24-48 hours if a detainee should et released or sent to CJT'F-7. The JAG experts

1%(3)-3
d. There is a "Draft" FRAGO published by CJTF-7 for staffmg tunong the MSCs that states, "All civilian intemeei shall have a review of their detention NLT 72 hours from apprehension by the servicing Judge Advocate/Legal Officer of the detaining unit... Security internees may be held longer than 72 hours for intelligence gathering purposes, however the unit shall complete a review of the grounds for detention within 72 hours of apprehension." If published, this provision would improve the efficiency of the process and ensure we do not keep detainees in our facilities longer than necessary.
FOR OFFIC E ONLY 14 This docu t ntaina
Diasemin prohibited informa FROM
except as • deed by MANDA DISCLOSURE
AR 20-1 under IA; Exemption 5
P901
DA IG

Sequence for detention of suspects in violation of OCPA orden/Sovereign Law/Military Operations
I Detention based on Detention based on Violation of OCPA Captming unit
Intel Tiugetng Oidw or Completes applicable SOV42141 Law Dartmoor Note 1
)elai nee transported to
Resperthe collection point (UN
bdenqption mobs in Durward= detainee b of no ftstbsr Intarronation emits ist Detenninalion eat Detain is clbsti valor Nola 2 Violation of0CPA order DOE CDR dotorahlat Period of dolomites et DM CP or Of Sovereign Law
Trsofon melons
Offeradoes to DCCP
Detainee released On Own Donne. traaalbered Cape Holding Ansa (1310") DCCP deeming, PC And tends as 114 hol or Tsansfurad to Dotaineo eraneheredio Municipal pd to await Analssmonst by In* Judicial ninon
Cup Hold= Ares

NOTE 1 Dominated= to moancony detain= is as foga= OCPA Apfeebension Fam (oompletody filled on*, DA FM 2823. tram stalanait, detailng circumstances of Moak= DA FM 4137, evidarelproperty ontody document, identifying all seized/confiscated property; MISR. These docunects, wheel properly empleted, provide kind sufficiency to proceed in the judicial proem. The lack of a prof:able anise determination or &Ws desailing that a mime WM 01-141111 about to be committed, rend= the Mire process inoonsequential in the jurichl process mid stinequently remits in **release of poterisl
NOl'E 2. MI son:aft reports (SR) must provide substantive drags dse detonnination to hands custody sidelines to the Carps licking Area. BM INT's ere the primary scum for Minks the necessery to roped= intalligare gatimoirs. 'Therefore, it is =pandit,. that the tagged= (13DE) THT moduct the screening pniceu IOT extinct real dine. Eastland infainetion. MI SR's must include a mcommencletion as to the deader:* dbposition (cg. said to CORPS for further interrogation. Detainee b of No Intel Value, Release on own reixgnianice„ etc).
Ciarilleadow Ilia Division Central Collection Point =CP) is not • holding area. It is normals point utilized for collective nctrograde operations to die Corps AO. It is not ramrod to conduct the long term bolding ofdetaiasta. BDE Cancel= Paints (CP) ere utilised =detain violators for mg to 21 days (prior to OCPA Official review far further detention). lf h sof the BDE CDR's intent to have a Malone transferred to CORPS, die &tam remains at dr BDE CP.
FIGURE 1. Excerpt from 101st DCCP SOP
(4)
Recommendation. The IG reconunends the Division incorporate a process where detainees have a review of their detention NLT 72 hours from apprehension as follows.

a.
Recommend the review officials for the detainees in the DCCP include representatives from DPMO, G2, and SJA. The review officials for detainees in the FCP should include the Brigade S2 and SJA.

b.
Recommend the review officials determine one the following decisions: 1) release on own recognizance; 2) transfer to CJTF-7 Holding Area; 3) transfer to municipal jail for arraigmnent by Iraqi judicial system; 4) hold for another 72 hours in the collection point for further intelligence exploitation.

c.
Recommend the approval authority for the above decisions be one of the Assistant Division Commanders for the DCCP detainees, and the BCT Conunander for the FCPs.

le(
FOR OFFICIAL/E ONLY 15 Thie docUment ntaine Dieseminatio i prohibited information FROM
except as a fixed by MANDATO CLOSURE AR 20-1 under the , Exemption 5
$902
DA IG
DOD-045232