Statement of Major General Michael E. Dunlavey re: Investigation of Possible Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay

Major General Michael Dunlavey was interviewed regarding his knowledge of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). MG Dunlavey arrived to GTMO on or about December 13, 2002 as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-170. In regards to techniques used while at GTMO, MG Dunlavey stated that four dogs were used in the facility to intimidate and prevent riots. MG Dunlavey also had first-hand knowledge of other techniques, including sound overload, short shackling, duct taping detainees and food and water deprivation. He stated that his use of the techniques were not in contravention of the Geneva Convention.
Aside from an incident where a FBI agent leaped across a table attempting to hit a detainee, MG Dunlavey was not aware of any incidents where a detainee was physically abused; he stated "physical abuse just does not work."

Doc_type: 
Interview
Doc_date: 
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Doc_rel_date: 
Monday, January 1, 2007
Doc_text: 

SUMMARIZED WITNESS STATEMENT OF MG (RETIRED) MIKE DUNLAVEY
MG Mike Dunlavey, FORMER COMMANDER, JTF-170, was interviewed and made the following statement on or about 1007 hours, 17 March 2005, at WFO, Arlington, VA:
Appointment memos were shown to this witness. The witness went over the allegations.
Witness sworn .by LtGen Schmidt. The witness provided the following testimony:

BACKGROUND:
How I became the JTF-170 Commander? I was working at the National Security
Agency. On 14 February 2002, I was contacted to meet with the SECDEF. I received a joint service billet description. I met with the SECDEF on the 20th or 21st of February
2002, along with the Deputy SECDEF, Wolferwitz and a number of other personnel.
The SECDEF told me that DoD had accumulated a number of bad guys. He wanted to
set up interrogation operations and to identify the senior Taliban and senior operatives
and to obtain information on what they were going to do regarding their operations and
structure.
The SECDEF said he wanted a product and he wanted intelligence now. He told me what he wanted; not how to do it.
Initially, I was told that I would answer to the SECDEF and USSOUTHCOM. I did not
have to deal with USCENTCOM. Their mission had nothing to do with my mission.
Everything had to go up to USSOUTHCOM then to JCS. The directions changed and I
got my marching orders from the President of the United States. I was told by the
SECDEF that be wanted me back in Washington DC every week to brief him.
I have 35 years of Intelligence experience. I am a trial lawyer and between interrogations in Vietnam, being a CI Commander, and as a trial lawyer, I have done over 3,000 interrogations. The SECDEF needed a common sense way on how to do business.
The mission was to get intelligence to prevent another 9/11.
GTMO Situation:
Mike Lehnert did a miraculous job of getting Camp X-ray set up.
When I got to GTMO the facility consisted of literally a dangling fence. Detainees were right next to one another. In the Seabee but for example, everyone saw who was being interrogated.
AR 15-6 GTMO InvestigationExhibit 11. of 76 Exhibits
1

3738
DOD JUNE
DoD photographers were taking pictures for historical purposes. They published them
with no regard for security. My job was to establish it.
as the Assistant J2. He worked up the JMD and tried to fill it with bo o ccomplish the interrogation mission.
We have not fought a real war since Vietnam. Except for DHS, our interrogators were
virtually inexperienced. It was an OJT situation on the ground at GTMO.
When I arrived, I met the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) for the FBL He was a SAC out of Miami. Interrogations had started but there was no system. For example, the interrogators thought vas the big dog. He made a lot of noise in the prison grounds but he was not the big guy. There simply was no process in place to assess who the real leaders were.
JTF-160 was losing control of detainees. There was a major riot with the detainees.
They were shaking out their blankets and throwing food.
ikeI tried to set up a process that would work for the FBI. orked the
He
U.S.S. Cole incident. He was the best interrogator. He as a native s r and was
very, very good.
The military linguists were worthless. They came out of school and could order coffee,
but they were getting smoked by the detainees.
The guards were living no better than the detainees.
The standard was to treat them humanely.
Frankly, the 1992 version of FM 34-52 had a problem with it. It was 18 years old and it

was howations were done for POWs.
My people, the interrogators, got briefed on what my task force rules were.
The Geneva Conventions applied. I treated them as human beings, but not like soldiers. They had a significant cultuie.she rugs and beads were significant to me t them practice religion
The detainees do not control the environment.
2
aa'
3739

DOD JUNE
6
i31
Everyday we had undercover FBI agents o terrogating. We did want to protect the identity of the people. We had n most continuously on the island. 51
-61
We eventually got good information on who the leaders were and then we surprised them
with a response team. We grabbed them and took them out to the Brig where the ICRC
could see them, but they could not talk to them.

We had detainees that jumped the guards. There was a guy that took the MRE spoon,
shaved it down and made a scalpel. We changed their sheets to the sheets in the federal
prison system so they can't be torn or tied. They took magnets, welding rods, and
fashion them into weapons. We collected a footlocker full of weapons.

INTERROGATIONS:
We built Tiger Te g
The Combined Investigative Task Force (CITF) brought to the staff and the Joint
Commander, a capability to collect evidence to criminally prosecute cases.
0 SS cans from being ed. We were trying to work through
the moved out smartly and met with
the CINC.

They had
good investigative skills and had experience dealing wi ese op e. ie had mass
murderers.

The FBI SAC came every two weeks. They could not decide what to do. The.ynever
built up any type of rapport. We had problems from the get go with the FBI. They had
the best interrogators. Interrogations were done in my facilities. Any intelligence they
got they would share with us.

We had an SOP on how we did business. We knew from chester document t
the would accuse us of torture and inhumane treatmen

3
3740
DOD JUNE
DOD057547

t,t,lotE)1;¦__

.
DOD JUNE 3741
ABUSE ALLEGATIONS:

I would show up unannounced to see what was going on in the interrogations. Someone being out of line is very possible. I won't equate it to NYPD Blue. There were situations where a guy would urinate or jack off on a female interrogator. He did it to offend her. I
would not allow them to use religion as a shield. The detainees threw feces at the guards.
3742
An Article 15 was given to a guard for hosing down a detainee. The detainee threw a
bucket of urine on him.
If something was going wrong, the climate in the command was comfortable for self ­reporting.
We all knew the rules; and we followed them period.
I fell on my sword for the guy that was 100 years old. He was 90 to 105 years old and in his 4th lifetime. He had no real good information. If he died we could not do a forensic study. I would violate Sharia. He was not an American soldier that would not come out in one piece. There were two other guys in their 70s to 80s. One was a cab driver that took Al Qaeda to the border. We got him out of there in October. We released 211 detainees. Only Al Qaeda reported abuses. None were abused. If a guy had information, we would focus on him
The duct tape incident, I remember that. It was in June or July 2002. I did an internal investigation. They sat and screamed at us. I think the MPs helped the interrogators. I don't know if the guard was directed to restrain the detainee from doing something As a judge if they screamed in court, I would tape them to a chair and tape their mouths. In a legitimate detainee facility, you would do it. If we did not, they would do it.
The detainees were treated humanely. They had a high status of care. They were not EPWs. They refused to identify themselves. On the postcards they gave us the wrong
name.
Humane is who we are as the American military.
My first lesson was in Vietnam. I went out in the field and the South Vietnamese had two POWs. They got screamed at and kicked around. I watched what was going on. I was a graduate of DLA. There was a big plate of boiled rice with flies on it. I asked one of POWs when he had last eaten. He said, "four days ago and water two days ago". They chained him to a .50 cal and said he would kill him if he ran away. I had a canteen. I drank and gave him a drink. It worked. I got his name.
I employed what worked and did not work.
6
0...0•¦¦414114.44,...
3743
z
13
egars t se use of dogs. The dogs would be used to escort movement of personnel
from detention to interrogation facilities. Dogs were there to intimidate. There were only
four dogs in the whole facility. They were there to prevent riots and for security

The dogs were under control of the MP handler. They would have the dogs look at the detainees. On the other side of the coin, we do use the dogs as pris n ontrol in the federal system. We did not let the dogs bark or bite detainees. ought dogs to (13 bmy attention, I probably would have approved it. We did not use e ogs on the prisoners.
Keep in mind, they don't like dogs. Unless the dogs are on patrol, they would be in an interrogation room. Using dogs is equal to the Fear Up technique. It breaks their concentration in their response to the interrogation techniques. They would be thinking about that dog. Is the dog a real threat? Absolutely not.
We physically removed an FBI agent when he went across the desk at a detainee. It
happened in my first three months. He was a big kind of guy. The detainee said something like he knows his family and that he was going to kill them. I think it
happened during my tenure.
FBI impersonation? No, not on a normal course of business. We did not identify who people where. The names and rank were covered. The FBI wore polo shirts and their badge. The CITF did the same thing. It was part of the deception technique. Maybethere was a complaint. I never knew or heard about it. Would CITE and FBI act as DoD? It could have been a technique.
Interfering with FBI; we significant difference of opinion. There was a management issue wher uld come in and did not coordinate for a detainee because they wanted to to e detainee right away. FBI had interrogation plans.
7

DOD JUNE
They did not brief DoD. CITF was going in without telling us. Every IP had to coordinated for facilities and linguists.
Loud music and yelling was part of a sequence of events to disrupt the detainees thought process.
Chaining the detainee in a fetal position is not a normal procedure to be used in interrogation. If the detainee leaped at an interrogator, it might have been used for security. It is not a normal procedure. The interrogators were instructed not to touch the detainees. They were to leave it to the guards.
If short shackled, the detainee had done an offensive action.
Food and water deprivation I find incredibly hard to believe. BG Baccus would not have tolerated that. Short rations were a disciplinary process. ICRC was there everyday. The Chaplain was there everyday. The average detainee gained 16 pounds. They got medical attention everyday.
The detainees went on a hunger strike. When weight metabolism decreased they went down to the medical facility. They had to give the detainees forcible IVs. They wanted Ensure. We made a joke about it.
There was no lap dance or rubbing up on detainees. There is no doubt the interrogators took off their BDU tops. They wanted to be comfortable. The hardcore detainees did not respond to women. They would not look at women. I did not approve it under any circumstances. It was stupid and offensive under the Geneva Conventions. It does not serve any useful purpose. If that occurred, I want to see the FBI report.
Red ink used as menstrual fluid? I've never heard of that technique. It would disrupt the intelligence and prosecution gathering operations.
Ghost detainees...every person that landed on the island was processed through the MP cycle.
.TTF-160 was in disarray when I took over. They had 60 outstanding Inspector General complaints. We tried to clean up as much as we could before MG Miller came.
TIT-170 served two Article 15s to two individuals for personal misconduct. It was not detainee related.
8
-CILLLsehreteain-
3745
DOD JUNE
S

Other than the incident with FBI contractor that physically weilptietainee ' recall any other problems with FBI agents and detainees. LT d LT might have counseled someone for wrong or inappropriate beh .
.
I counseled people on the lack of preparation. I did it as a group. I counseled FBI. I
never had information from the IG or JAG that we had a problem. It would stick out.
FBI did separate interviews. I have faith that th It,as not abusing

Will
s. I had a high degree of faith. I had access to an I wanted.
I also had high faith that the FBI was conducting proper interviews. Physical abuse just does not work. Successful prosecution was their goal. They did not want to jeopardize that.
We had four to six guys in Camp X-Ray. To put a detainee in X-Ray required that we
notify USSOUTHCOM and JCS and we would have done a report in writing.
I was interviewed for the Church report.
Virtually no one had a degree of expertise to deal with these people. They do not subscribe to our values legally and morally. We did benefit from some great young people. We had a native Pakistani that was fluent in Arabic.
FBI's approach was that you would stay in jail if you did not talk to us.
Wasigortured? No.
PC
I declare under penalty that the foregoing in a true and correct summary of the statement
given by the witness, MG (ret) Mike Dunlavey. Executed at Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base, Arizona, on 29 March 2005.
IDALL M. SCHMIDT Lieutenant General, USAF AR 15-6 Investigating Officer

9

3746
DOD JUNE
SUMMARIZED WITNESS STATEMENT LT CDR
who was interviewed on 24 March 2005 at a conference room in
LCDR the Hilton Hotel located at the O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois. Also present was legal representative (Navy Lieutenant). The follow-on interview took place telephonically on 14 April 16, 2005 at 1254 hours. His combined statement was substantially as follows:
I arrived at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) on or about 13 December 2002. I was deployed from European Command (EUCOM) on temporary duty status to act as the Liaison Officer for EUCOM. While acting as the 1.2sIO for EUCOM I observed some interrogations and even reviewed documents concerning however I did not actively participate in interrogations or conversations concerning interrogation procedures. On or about 28 June 2003, I was released from my obligations to EUCOM and placed in the capacity of Special Projects Team Chief for Joint Task Force GTMO (JTF-GTMO). I held that position until I re-deployed on 24 September 2003.
During the course of the interview I was asked about what I knew about detainee abuse at Guantanamo. I was specifically asked about the following acts: Inappropriate use of military working dogs, inappropriate use of duct tape, impersonation of or interference with FBI agents, inappropriate use of loud music and/or yelling, sleep deprivation, short-shackling, inappropriate use of extreme temperatures during interrogation, and inappropriate use of sexual tension as an interrogation technique, to include use of lap dances and simulated menstrual fluids.
I have personal knowledge of the following:
The only time I recall a military working dog (MWD) near a detainee was in the movement operations fort At no time was a MWD used during any
interrogations of IIII
I can say with certainty that none of my interrogators impersonated FBI agents during their interrogations because to do so would have been counterproductive. The mission for the JTF-GTMO interrogators was obtaining actionable intelligence from the detainee. Most of the detainees assigned to the Special Project Team were very intelligent, English-speaking men who were educated (at least partially) in the United States of America and understood our criminal justice operation. The detainees knew the FBI represented the law enforcement community. As a branch of law enforcement, the detainee's knew that the FBI had the power to incarcerate them for years. With the above being said, it wasn't shocking to learn that the detainees did not like opening up to the FBI. Therefore, it would have been stupid for me to encourage my interrogators to impersonate FBI agents.
I did authorize a couple of my interrogators to impersonate Department of State agents during a few interrogations of ISN
760. The impersonation approach implemented by the interrogators was approved.
AR 15-6-GTMO investigation Exhibit ZD _ of 76 Exhibits

°EMMET*
DOD JUNE 3747

My team never used "music" as an interrogation technique. However I know that music was used as a technique by some of the other teams (however even the other teams started to use the technique less and less over time).
Yelling was a common tool used during interrogations. Why not! My interrogators (on the Special Projects Team) didn't yell to the point of losing their cool, but they would raise their voice if the detainee was being an obstinate ass. Yelling was never used to obtain information — it was a means to make a point.
One of the key components of the new parameters was the restriction of interrogation sessions to 15 hours. The detainee was allowed 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep. Therefore, interrogations of were limited to no more than 15 hours. I can't remember any interrogator setting up a 15-hour interrogation.
I never witnessed a detainee being "short shackled." However I do recall reading MFRs that described the practice (I can't recall the detainee, but it was sometime in December 2002). I made a mental note of the practice for two reasons: Fust, the use of stress positions, in an interrogation, isn't an effective approach for obtaining reliable information. Second, the MFRs were blunt and I feared that if "folks" not on the "team" read the reports that the contents could either be misconstrued or make the interrogators look bad (if taken in context). In fact, 1 even asked the interrogators about the practice and counseled him about stress positions and drafting MFRs.
As head of the Special Projects Team 1 was the supervisor for the implementation of the Special Interrogation Plan for (the plan was submitted sometime in May 2003 and approved in late August 2003). The lead interrogator on the IP was
DOD JUNE 3748
hooded during the movement) have conversations in Arabic to further confuse the
detainee.
I also posed as a White House representative (counsel to the President). I was a "Navy
Captain Collins." I presented 760 with an "official" letter (a five paragraph document)
detaikii: how his family had been captured by the Coalition Forces and was in danger if
he INN didn't coo e. I vetted the le through the JTF-GTMO SJA
en s e o s guard "he wanted to speak to CAPT111111because he was unwilling to protect others at the detriment of himself and his family").
I don't know anything about someone describing a dream to a detainee about seeing a coffin with the detainee's ISN on it, or the description of the detainee being buried in Christian soil.
The approval process for a Special IP: Team produces the product, team chief presents to ICE Chief, who forwards to the JIG Chief, who forwards it to CDR JTF-GTMO. The CDR then submitted it to SOUTHCOM and SECDEF for approval. The chain of command when ey executed the second Special IP was ICE Chief JIG Chief
and JTF-GTMO CDR MG Miller

4-SECREC-11:-

3749
DOD JUNE
I did not approve i.e. review all of the MFRs. had approval authority, as did Both had approved MFRs, most especially when I was on leave.
I declare under penalty that the foregoin in a true and correct summary of the statements given by the witness, Executed at Miami, Florida on 16 April 2005
LTC GLENN
GLENN CRO*THER Investigating Officer
3750

DOD JUNE
SUMMARIZED WITNESS STATEMENT 0 who was interviewed on 03 March 2005 at a conference room in the National War'College Build' , Fort McNair partment of National Security Strategy, accompanie ...111101iuring the interview. s
was interviewed a second time on or about 17 M h 2005 at the Washington Field
Office for CJS Southern Command in Arlington, Virginia. His statement was substantially as
follows:

I was stationed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) from the end of July 2002 to December 2002. At the time I was the Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief for Joint Task Force 170 th th)/YTF-GTMO. I was working fo en I was (TIT-170 deployed to GTMO.
During the course of the interview I was asked about what I knew about detainee abuse at
Guantanamo. I was specifically asked about the following acts: Inappropriate use of military
working dogs, inappropriate use of duct tape, impersonation of or interference with FBI agents,
inappropriate use of loud music and/or yelling, sleep deprivation, short-shackling, inappropriate
use of extreme temperatures during interrogation, and inappropriate use of sexual tension as an
interrogation technique, to include use of lap dances and simulated menstrual fluids.

I have personal knowledge of the following:
/ i mili • wo !_,. , . dog (MWD) was brought into the interrogation booth of a high value
detainee •n or about October 2002. The MWD was brought to the entrance of the
interrogation Innrl, by the dog's handler and directed to bark and growl at the detainee. The use
of a MWD in an interrogation was unusual; and therefore, was mentioned in the interrogatio

ul ' plan submitted to the JTF-170 th Commander. Once approved, the interrogation plan for Ait was implemented. The use of a MWD was one of many techniques approved and executed during the interrogation cycle. It is important to note that the. MWD was not ordered to attack or
6/
harm the detainee. The MWD was only used as a means to intimidate the detainee.
W read the redacted Federal Bureau of Investigation documents on the ACLU website (the
documents provided to the ACLU as part of a Freedom of Information Act request), I remember
coming across the statements regarding "duct tape" and thinking the statements were about me. I
recall, very vividly an incident involving duct tape that occurred during November 2002 and I am
glad I have the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the incident. .

There was one time when I directed a couple of MPs to keep a detainee quite in the interrogation
booth. I did not direct the MPs to use duct tape as an interrogation technique nor would I ever
direct a guard or an interrogator to use duct tape as part of a formal interrogation. I authorized
the use of duct tape as a control measure - to prevent a detainee from inciting a riot. After an
interrogation session was complete (I was not involved in the session), the detainee began to yell
(in Arabic): "Resist, Resist with all your might..." I stepped out of my office when I heard the
commotion and walked to the interrogation booth where the yelling was coming from. When I
arrived at the booth, I saw a detainee screaming and an interrogator, translator and a couple of

AR 15-6 GTMOlnveStigation
1
Exhibit 1t of 76 Exhibits
DOD JUNE 3751
guards standing there frozen. The soldiers didn't know what to do so I directed the MPs to keep
the detainee quite. One of the MPs mentioned he had duct tape. After a consultation with the
Joint Interrogation Group (JIG) Chief, I approved the MP's use of duct as a means to keep the
detainee quite. The MPs placed a single strand of duct tape across the detainee's mouth. The
single strand proved ineffective because the detainee was soon yelling the same resistance slogan
-of the
again. This time the MPs wrapped a single strand of duct tape around the mouth aird-head detainee. The detainee removed the duct tape again. Feed up and concerned that the detainee's yelling might cause a riot in the interrogation trailer (there were at least eight other interrogations occurring at this time), I ordered the MPs to wrap the duct tap twice around the head and mouth and three times under the chin and around the top of the detainee's head. Just as the MPs were finished wrapping the duct tape around the detainee's head, an FBI special agent appeired in .the hallway. Without inquiring why the detainee's bead was wrapped in duct tape, the special agent exclaimed that he wasn't going to stand by and witness this type of abuse and stormed out of the trailer. Later that day I received a call from Major General (MG) Miller asking for my presence in his office. When I arrived, MG Miller "chewed me out." I never received a formal reprimand or any other type of punishment, but it wasn't necessary. MG Miller's conversation with me was sufficient to get the point across: even if the reason for using the duct tape was valid, it was not the interrogation section's jurisdiction to direct the guards to act. The guards were not under my control and I was not to order them to act again.
A formal investigation was never conducted regarding the "duct tape" incident and an investigation wasn't necessary. I admitted that I directed the use of duct tape and MG Miller told me not to do it again.
I never instructed or authorized the impersonation of FBI agents as part of an approved
However I do remember when an interrogator (I believe the interrogator was
me he impersonated an FBI agent during an interrogation. I immediately told t the impersonation of any government agent was authorized and that he was to • -approach. In fact, I even held a "town hall" meeting and told the interrogators that impersonation of non military US governmental officials was prohibited (this "town hall" meeting occurred before MG Miller took over command of JTF -GTMO). For the record, I don't believe the impersonation of FBI agents is against the law or violates any other standing interrogation policy.
The use of loud music and yelling was used during the interrogation of certain high value detainees. However the techniques were not "stand alone" techniques. The techniques were always wrapped up in other approaches (i.e. Fear Up Harsh) and would be enumerated in the interrogation plans sent to MG Dunlavey or Miller for approval.
I define "sleep deprivation" as keeping a detainee awake continuously for five or six day's straight. Based on my definition of sleep deprivation, I never authorized or witnessed the use of "sleep deprivation" in an interroga ion session or approved interro ation . I recall having a meeting with the JIG Chief he JTF-170th SJA d myself regarding the maximum length an interrogat on ession could last. After some ussion and research, we determined that it was acceptable to interrogate detainees for a maximum of twenty hours in a twenty-four hour period. However the detainee was required to have four hours of uninterrupted sleep between interrogation sessions. We came to that number after reading about the United
13 6

DOD 'TUNE 3752

States Army Ranger Course. During the Ranger Course, our soldiers are subjected to twenty-hour days and are apparently only required to have four hours of sleep. If it was okay to subject our soldiers to twenty-hour days, then in our mind's it was okay to subject the terrorist to twenty-hour interrogations. If a detainee were kept awake for 5 days straight — that would be sleep deprivation.
As the ICE Chief I was never part of any interrogations. However it was my responsibility to
monitor the interrogators and interrogation sessions. I would periodically monitor interrogations
to watch my interrogators in action. During one of my monitoring sessions, I noticed that an
interrogator had left the air conditioner "cranked down" to 60 degrees and left the detainee alone
in the interrogation booth.
I can only remember directing a female in for to touch a detainee one time. The '
interrogator, I believe her name was was having difficulty interrogating a detainee. A
Specifically, the detainee refused to s op praying during the interrogation session (i.e. the
fl
detainee would stare at the floor and s • ft.] ham passages from the Koran). After an especially
difficult and frusta-ming session, a d a native translator approached me with a . #4
suggestion to break the detainee' • • .., a • • on. The plan was simple. According to the native
translator, devote Muslims cannot continue to pray if they are "unclean." Therefore, if the
detainee were made "unclean" be would have to stop praying. One wa to 2. i., a Muslim male

unclean is to be touched by a female. Based on -s lar, I instructed o purchase was‘

cheap perfume at the PX (rose oil). When turned with o , instructed her &6
to put the perfume on her hands and rub her oor the detainee's arms. The plan worked just
as anticipated. The ee t pped praying. However the detainee became violent and
G attempted to attack In the process, the detainee hit his mouth on the chair and chipped his tooth. ee was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment.
Many of the "aggressive" interrogation techniques we 1111.1111111114* yself) requested during October 2002 was a direct result of the pressure we e. t om as gton to obtain intelligence and the lack of policy guidance being issued by Washington.
r-,---
1,4..)6
I declare and the witne
b6
2005.

the foregoing in a true and correct summary of the statement given by Executed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, on 29 March
0k
4vestigating Officer
3

DOD JUNE
3753
DOD057560
SUMMARIZED TNESS STATEMENT OF Supervisory Special Agent In-Chargilli ho was interviewed on 11 January 2005 at a onference room in the ( ¦cz
ommisstons Bui ding, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). Mr an attorney for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), was also present for the interview. His statement was substantially as follows:
I was originally assigned to GTMO from 25 June 2002 to August 2002. I was then re-deployed to GTMO for a two-year tour from August 2003 to May 2005. During my first deployment I was working as a Special Agent for the FBI and I am currently the Supervisory Special Agent in Charge for FBI operations at GTMO.
During the course of the interview I was asked about what I knew about detainee abuse at Guantanamo. I was specifically asked about the following acts: Inappropriate use of military working dogs, inappropriate use of duct tape, impersonation of or interference with FBI agents, inappropriate use of loud music and/or yelling, sleep deprivation, short-shackling, inappropriate use of extreme temperatures during interrogation, and inappropriate use of sexual tension as an interrogation technique, to include use of lap dances and simulated menstrual fluids.
I have personal knowledge of the following:
The FBI conducts separate interviews from the Joint Interrogation Element (JIG) interrogators at GTMO. There are times when we will conduct interviews with the Criminal Investigation Task

Force since we have similar law enforcement missions.
I know that(, a member of the Special Projects Team, posed as an FBI agent during an
P6
interrogation. Other agents mentioned that interrogators from other agencies also posed as FBI agents. I discussed the "impersonation issue" witlailiffara and he said it wouldn't i‘ happen again without FBI approval. It was not an aggravated event and it was handled on the P6 ground level. You could ask 500 agents and 400 would tell you that they posed as other people during interviews. It just requires prior coordination. The handling of this situation was an example of proper inter-agency coordination and cooperation.
It is my understanding that short shackling was authorized. I have never personally seen it done. told me that he witnessed this.

Jl ( 136
I declare under penal that the fore oin in a true and correct summary of , the statement given by
4, the witness, Agent( Executed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,
Arizona, on 29 March 2005.

--\\, -.— JOHN FURLOW4es -, tigating Officer
AR 15-6 GTMO Investigation Exhibit &IL of 76 Exhibits
1

Doc_nid: 
7078
Doc_type_num: 
73