Email re: Interrogation Plan #63

The document is an email, regarding the interrogation plan for Detainee #63. The email includes information about FBI concerns about the plan and DHS methods.

Doc_type: 
Email
Doc_rel_date: 
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Doc_text: 

• b6 AL1 INFORMATION C ONTAINED
b 7 ._,----tiERE IN IS UNCLASSIFIED
Int( ration Plan #63 Page 1
DATE 07-22-21:109 BY 65179 DI1H/11.T6'
From:
To:
Subject:
I I
b6
Interrogation Plan #63
b 7C
As promised, attached is a "hybrid" . plan for #63 that incorporates a phase where our desired techniques
are employed. DOD here on the ground agreed to this plan and will discuss it during the 1600 meeting
today. I believe that is the same meeting you are attending. We are also sending the plan to the BAU for ,
their review. We remain ambivalent about this hybrid approach even though they bought off on a rapport
building phase one. One of the downsides is that it is not a plan that allows for a long term rapport
building technique. Success or failur' will be e ermined in 5-7 days before moving on to a next phase. b6
Also attached is a narrative written b hich advocates a long term approach— also being sent b7c
to BAU. A concern with embracing the hybrid approach is that there will be many variables that we will
have no control over. As I understand it, we are not to participate with DOD in the actual' interrogation. I
think this is wise. HoWever, in order tolurther diplomacy we met with DOD at its request, to determine if
there was any middle ground between their approach and our proposed approach. The hybrid approach,
•was that middle ground. But w • still have misgivings:
1. The DHS plan seems better suited for the battlefield and not for long-term 'detainees.
2. Although very enthusiastic, DHS interrogators appear to have limited experience in any kind of ' .
interview approach which emphasizes patience or being friendly over a long period of time. They appear
to be highly susceptible to pressure to get quick-results, and this pressure will be reflected in they
improvise plans as they go along.
3. The reliability of their interview techniques.is questionable. Worse, there appears to be no one on the
DHS side who seems to be concerned about this: They are quick to dismiss any approach-that extends
beyond their experience or imagination..
4. Their embacement of a fear-based approach is consistent with the military environment in which they
operate, but may not be conducive to the long term goal of obtaining relaiable intelligence.
I know that you may have news for us following your 1600 meet. Please review the documents attached
and advise as to whether we should participate further in any way or gracefully back out of this one. If
you want us to back out, I request that HQ provide a written commmunication directing us not to get
•involved. Otherwise, our continued dealings with other agencies here are cramped.
[Rol I>> Although I agree with the above, I think DHS will likely revert back to their .
original plan,which basically begins with Phase II of this hybrid plan,if we don't give our blessing,to the
hybrid plan. While the hybrid is not the best plan, I do believe it is the lesser of two evils. I also believe
that this hybrid plans does simulate some of the important factors found in Stockholm Syndrome cases.
Specifically:extended hours awake under increased stress continuing over a number of days, extended
periods of time where rapport may be developed and the interviewer can become humanized in the
detainee's eyes, opportunity for the detainee to be convinced that they are going through this ordeal
together, all work together to possibly accelerate lhe bonding process. For these reasons I think' this
hybrid has more opportunity for success that the DHS original plan.
Thanks,
The GTMO Guys
FBI018154CBT
OIG REQ 2/18/05—PART 14 FBI0000016
b 6
DOJOIG012914

Doc_nid: 
11655
Doc_type_num: 
67