Fay Report Annex: Statement Petty Officer, NCOIC for Navy Dog Handlers re: Use of Military Working Dogs at Abu Ghraib Prison

This statement is made by the Navy's Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the Navy Military Working Dogs (MWD) used at Abu Ghraib prison. He is a Petty Officer and a senior dog handler. As it pertains to Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the use of MWDs at Abu Ghraib prison he stated "We never received any instruction on the use [of dogs] in the compound. We raised question on what we could and could not do in this environment, but we never received a straight answers. I briefed my team to use common sense, and use your [best judgment] as the situation dictates. Based on the escalation of use of force, a dog cannot be employed on a prisoner if that prisoner is not posing a threat." He then described an incident in which his dog was deployed within the prison, "On the night of 24 NOV 03 we were with the Internal Reactionary Force (IRF) when we received a call to search the hard site...I was outside the hard site when I received the call about a dog being needed. I assumed when the call was placed for a dog…needed to conduct a search. I realized once the interrogator threatened the detainee with the dog, that it was not for a search. When my dog lunged, I came forward about three or four seconds and regained control of my dog and pulled him back. My dog's leash is about six foot; it did not extend all the way. They started yelling and screaming and that is when I lost control of my dog again. I couldn't tell the detainees reaction because it was so dark, at that time I was trying to regain control of my dog." He then stated that the Navy Dog Handlers would refuse to participate in detainee interrogations in the future because that is not why they were deployed to the facility and the dogs were not trained to be used in such a way.

Doc_type: 
Interview
Doc_date: 
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Doc_rel_date: 
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Doc_text: 

HEADER
/HEADER
BODYOn 1 j February 2004, a team of officers,
directed by Major General Antonio Taguba,
conducted the following interview. Major General
Taguba was appointed as an Investigating Officer
under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6, by
Lieutenant General David D. McKiernan, Commanding
General of the Coalition Forces Land Component
Command (CFLCC), to look into allegations of
maltreatment of detainees, detainee escapes and
accountability lapses, al Abu Ghraib, also known
as the Baghdad Central Confinement Facility
(BCCF). The panel also inquired into training,
standards,-employment, command policies, and
internal policies, concerning the detainees held
at Abu Gharib prison. Finally, the panel looked
into the command climate and the command and

supervisory presence

The following persons were present:

MG Antonio M. Taguba, 576-50-8375, DCG-CFLCC,
Interviewer

MP, CFLCC -
EM4,1 Interviewer

JA, CFLCC - SJA,
_aerviewer

705th MP
attalion, Interviewer

NAS Signal and

1111111111111.1111111111111111111110
Canine Unit, U.S. Navy,

Interviewee

27D30, CFLCC
tIPP"IllIllIlli".IIIIIP, Recorder

The interview is summarized as follows:

My name is .I ve

U. . Navy. My social security number is
1 an assigned to the NAS Signal and

i,
Pi . I can be addressed as Petty Officer or MAI.
I received a verbal order from my Chief back at
NAS signal saying that there was a mission coming
up at that I may receive it. Time passed and I was
told that I would be the one to take the mission
here. I am a dog handler. I came here with two
other individuals from the same region, but
different basis. We arrived here on 18 November
2003. We were given no specific instructions

before our arrival here. We reported to the 320th to coming to the prison
TOC when we ar 'v d
nd he told us he was

we met with
the POC.

As far as I knew we were to support the prison
with canine support. I had never worked in a
prison environment before. We did a one-day
training period on scout and search for escape
prisoners back at my unit. No one wanted to claim
us when we arrived here so the 229th Military

Police Company picked us up. It was just us navy

dog handlers that got picked up by the 229th MP

CO, the army dog handlers arrived a day or two

later. We had a total of five dogs here. There

were three navy dogs and two army dogs.

We usually worked with•the Internal Reactionary
Force (IRF). We would go out with the IRF when
they received a call from the 320th TOC. I believe
CPT Jones to be the commander of the 2991 MP
Company. We never received any orientation on what

was

expected out of our canine unit, we just used
IC for the navy dog

common sense. I am the

is the NCOIC for the

handlers, an

army dog hand rs

We usually stayed in dose contact withal.
Upon arrival we began
ng wi on a daily basis, then about
a week later we took over the Entry Control Point
East (ECP) for vehicle searches as well as working
went over a work schedule with

.

with the earth I

egarding a rotation tor covering the
TrarITTIV

IRF. We had one dog at the ECP, and
the other two on standby with the IRF.

We never received any instruction on the use
offeree in the compound. We raised question on
what we could and could not do in this
environment, but we never received a straight
answers. I briefed my team to use common sense,
and use your escalation of use offeree as the
situation dictates. Based on the escalation of use
of force, a dog cannot be employed on a prisoner
if that prisoner is not posing a threat.

I have a Belgium Melon. He is a control explosive

dog. My dog had never been in a prison

environment. The dogs didn't have to be retrained

we used the same commands

On the night of 24 NOV 03 we were with the IRF
when we received a call to search the hard site

Page 5 of 6
nd myself shared lessons learned. If
anything came up on a professional level we word

I honestly believe that

share it with each other.

I don't think there

dogs are under utilized here;

is a need for dogs here other than the ECP and for
any escape attempts.

We once went out with the 82nd on a mission
outside of the compound. We provided security for
their team, and also searched fields for weapon
caches. I recommended that their be only one

canine unit team assigned to this compound.

nd myself worked on was

The SOP tha

tried

knower

finished in comber.

making the Army Handlers follow the SOP and I

personally gave 1111MIONNO two copies of the SOP, but like I said before - didn't want to be part of a team.
1 received my dog handling training at the 341st

San

Training Squadron, Lackland Air Force Base,
Antonio, TX. My next assignment was with Southwest

Regional Canine unit, San Diego, CA.

The panel stopped, to discuss 11111111011P
statements. The panel reconvene .

There were two male personnel dressed in civilian
cloths inside the cell that I assumed to be MI.
There were two personnel dressed in 11DU's were
outside across from the cell.

The Tier had lights on but the cell was dark That
was my first time in the hard site.

I was outside the hard site when I received the
I assumed when the

call about a dog being needed.

dog, that I was needed to

a

call was placed for

conduct a search. I realized once the interrogator
threatened the detainee with the dog, that it was
not for a search.

When my dog lounged, I came forward about three or
four seconds and regained control of my dog and
pulled him back. My dog's leash is about six foot;
it did not extend all the way. They started back
yelling and screaming and that is when I lost
control of my dog again. My leash extended almost
all of the six feet. I couldn't tell the detainees
reaction because it was so dark, at that time I

trying to regain control of my dog.

was

We would train with the IRE from time-to-time. We
would rehearse in an open area near the compound.
When we got called out for a search, the compound

zuealable,==xiniscanessagc. 60412004
prool 242/query I ree/jspialspiayvocumentop tne.
AG0000596
No names were said but I know one of the

individuals was about 6'4", short black hair,

slender build, brown eyes, wearing civilian

clothes. The interpreter was about 5'7", medium

black hair, and I believe she wore glasses. I

couldn't tell you what the other two looked like.

When I arrived at the cell I let the personnel

know I was there for the search. I never had a

discussion with the MI about my dog being used in

interrogation. It was a male's voice asking where

the dog was. The other navy handler's were called

and they actually refused the call because of my

incident. They were called once more and then

again they refused.

When a search is conducted the detainee should be
removed, leave everything in the same condition,
give the command for the dog to search the room,
let the dog search the room, and then exit the
room. On 24 NOV 2003 we were .called to the
compound to conduct the explosive search. I have
never been called to Camp Ganci or Camp Vigilence
without the IRF. We keep paperwork on the dogs;
the form is a 5585/3-detection/utilization form.
We turn in a copy each month. I don't have a
record for the incident on 24 NOV 2003, because we
only keep track of active searches.

We were never instructed on the Geneva Hague
Convention, I just try to treat people with
respect. There has been occasions where we have
let the IRF commander, know we have
refused to go to the comp . were never told
not to comply with MI and MP's when they request
us to assist them. We never received any guidance
on what was authorized and not authorized. The
interrogators never approached us individually
about us assisting them at the compound. I don't
know if the Army dog handlers were ever
approached.

et u w ween the Army dog
an ers n us. stated that the Navy
was basicall di n• into is Kool-Aid. I sit
down o try to work as one team,
but want to work as a team. We

work or the commander, and the Army dogs work
for the compound.

I have heard rumors that there are videotapes and
pictures of detainee abuse, arid I heard there was
a videotape o have a SOP that was
written up by and containing input and
guidance from myse e SOP basically states
that the navy handlers are not to be used for
anything except for what we were trained for.

for explosives. We had heard also that a prisoner
had someone had been shot. All 5 dogs were there

that night. The army dogs were for security while

our dogs searched for explosives. We went to

specific Tier, I couldn't tell you the name, but I

could show you if I were in the facility. We

searched the cells for explosives, none of the

dogs responded. We were preparing to leave when we

were told we needed to search another cell. I

decided to conduct the search. I reentered the

Tier and saw two individuals who were dressed in

green BDU's. They instructed me to search the cell
and as I approached the cell I heard a lot of

shouting and screaming. I looked around and

noticed that there was no one else up there; that

no other cells were occupied.

I peaked my head in the cell and noticed four
individuals, three males and one female. One male
was in the corner, two males were crouching, and
the female was next to the rack. 1 was having a
hard time controlling my dog because of the noise,
and the actions that were happening. I finally got
my dog under control when on of the MI guys told
one of the detainees, "If you don't tell me what I
want to know I'm gonna get this dog on you", or
words to that effect. I realized that it wasn't a
search and they actually wanted my services for
interrogation. I exited the cell, but my dog would
break the plan of the cell. The two individuals
and the female, which I know now to be an
interpreter, reentered the cell and went back in a
started yelling and screaming at this guy again.

With all the yelling and screaming going on my dog

breaks my control and charges the cell. The cell

was very dark; the only illumination was a pin

light. I see the female wincing, and I notice my

dog on her arm. I immediately call my dog off of
her, and my dog comes back to the heel. I ask the

female to come out so I can check her. She comes

out of the cell and I constantly ask her, "Are you

alright, did he bite you??" She says she is ok and

that she wasn't bit. I looked at her arm no bite
mark, no blood, and her DCU uniform wasn't torn. I
once again ask her if she is ok, and does she need

medical

attention. At that point I seefand I
ask what's going on, and he respon e by saying he
didn't know. Once I realized what was going on I
left, I didn't wanfof what was going on.
As I was leaving,ffollowed and then I
heard someone say, w ere s the dog, where's the
dog??"

supervisor would let us know it was clear to
enter. Next the IRF takes a line formation in
front of the "pen". Once the line is set we take
someone from the IRF and we start to search the
tents, as they hold the line. Once we done
searching the tents we position ourselves behind
the line. When we search the cells, it's just the
dog handler and the dog.

5585.2 B is the Navy military working dog manual.
I haven't seen or reviewed any Army Manuals
regarding military dogs.

their discussion, the panel briefed
and then they dismissed him.

/BODY
FOOTER
/FOOTER

Imp. proof:4 24 2ici ueryTree/jsp/displayDocumenlijsp?neviDoc=true&table=xmisc.message... 6/4/2004
AGO 0 0 0 59 7
DOD 000684

Doc_nid: 
3101
Doc_type_num: 
73