August 25, 2009 7:57 PM

Inside the CIA's Haphazard Interrogations

(CBS/AP)  With just two weeks of training, or about half the time it takes to become a truck driver, the CIA certified its spies as interrogation experts after 9/11 and handed them the keys to the most coercive tactics in the agency's arsenal.

It was a haphazard process, cobbled together in the months following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington by an agency that had never been in the interrogation business. The result was a patchwork program in which rules kept shifting and the goals often were unclear.

At times, the interrogators went too far, even beyond the wide latitude they were given under the Bush administration's flexible guidelines, according to newly unclassified documents released Monday. Interrogators took the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding beyond what was authorized. Mock executions were held. Family members were threatened. There were hints of rape.

If it was a terrifying process for the detainees, it was a bureaucratic nightmare for the interrogators. Until 2003, the agency provided its interrogators with rules on a case-by-case basis, sometimes giving permission by e-mail or even orally from CIA headquarters.

The interrogators were required to sign documents saying they understood the rules and would comply with them. Yet they were given ample room to improvise and make decisions about how much humanity to show to terror detainees.

While former Vice President Dick Cheney said the interrogation program was run by "highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law," the newly released documents suggest otherwise, at least in the early months.

The interrogators slapped prisoners, held a handgun to one's head, used power drills to make threats and left men shackled and naked in frigid rooms until they cooperated.

"How cold is cold?" one officer said in the 2004 CIA inspector general's report released Monday. "How cold is life-threatening?"

CIA Threatened to Kill Suspect's Children
Did CIA Violate Torture Law?
10 Things About the CIA's Bad Day
Holder Taps Prosecutor to Probe CIA Abuses
Unplugged: Uncovering CIA Interrogations
W.H.: CIA Not Out of Interrogation Biz
New Unit Will Question Key Terror Suspects
Panetta Defends CIA in E-Mail to Agency
Dems Laud, Republicans Slam CIA Interrogation News
Expert: CIA Techniques Were Torture

The CIA's Counterterrorism Center began training interrogators in November 2002, two months after suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah already had been repeatedly subjected to waterboarding.

But because the CIA had so little information about al Qaeda, CIA analysts could only speculate about what the detainees "should know," hobbling the interrogators' ability to ask meaningful questions and identify misleading or useful answers.

Some in the CIA correctly feared that the existence of the program would leak out someday. Others worried they'd be identified by name in news stories.

"One officer expressed concern that, one day, agency officers will wind up on some 'wanted list' to appear before the World Court for war crimes," the inspector general wrote.

Another added, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this ... (but) it has to be done."

Even the Justice Department, which authorized the interrogation program, conceded in a 2004 memo that "at least in some instances and particularly early in the program," the program appeared to have gone off track.

Attorney General Eric Holder Monday to look into whether such incidents amounted to violation of federal law. He said nobody who operated within the framework of the Justice Department's legal opinions will be charged.

But the program that the Bush administration's Justice Department approved in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks began to short-circuit almost immediately.

In August 2002, government lawyers said interrogators were not supposed to use harsh tactics until all other methods had failed. But three months later, when officials captured the terrorism suspect Abd al-Nashiri, believed to be behind the bombing of the USS Cole, interrogators immediately launched into enhanced tactics.

And the method of waterboarding used by the CIA did not always resemble the clinical, closely supervised process that the Justice Department approved. One official, explaining why interrogators were pouring excessive amounts of water over a detainee's cloth-covered mouth and nose, said, "It is for real."

Another interrogator repeatedly choked off the carotid artery of a prisoner, causing the detainee to pass out, then shaking him awake again. The interrogator had only recently been trained in interrogation tactics and had previous experience only in debriefing, the practice of questioning people already willing to cooperate.

As late as September 2003, the CIA was still sending mixed signals to its interrogators.

"No formal mechanisms were in place to ensure that personnel going to the field were briefed on the existing legal and policy guidance," the report said.

It was a debriefer, not a trained interrogator, who threatened alleged al-Nashiri with a power drill and an unloaded gun. Such threats violate U.S. anti-torture laws.

It's not clear from CIA reports whether waterboarding or other aggressive tactics made America safer, as Cheney has long claimed. CIA officials credited the detention and interrogation program with thwarting several terrorist attacks.

And Cheney repeated Tuesday the claim that the interrogations "saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks" and the interrogators "deserve our gratitude" and don't deserve "to be targets of political investigations or prosecutions."

But investigators said it's less certain that waterboarding or other coercive tactics directly contributed to that success.

In one case, CIA officials staged a mock execution to terrify a detainee into cooperating. Authorities believed the detainee was withholding information, and they felt they needed to get creative. So they pretended to kill another detainee in a nearby room.

It was an elaborate setup, complete with a guard playing a dead detainee.

But the scheme apparently didn't work. A senior officer later said the effort was so obviously a ruse, it yielded no benefit to interrogators.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 228 Comments
by hower4 August 27, 2009 3:20 AM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 26, 2009 4:46 PM EDT
Obviously they were engaged in combat against U.S. troops, OR, were found to be aiding, cooperating or supporting terrorist elements or operatives, making them culpable and guilty of terrorist acts....did you think we picked him up in a sweep and just beat him for no purpose or reason.....of course, that's how Eurotrash thinks
-------------------------------
So you regard it as acceptable to beat someone to death because they are suspected of something? Is that what you do to crime suspects in New York too?
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 26, 2009 5:29 AM EDT
by HereIsBaghdad2009 August 25, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
What prisoner was beat to death idiot?Your mommy?
---------------------------------
Manadel al-Jamadi is one of many who were beaten/tortured to death at Abu Ghraib. At least 28 prisoners died in custody in a short period at just that one American prison alone.

A 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers in Bagram prison. The coroner's report said that his legs were "pulpified". The report noted that Daliwar's legs would have certainly had to be amputated had he survived. The bones in his legs were so fractured as to lend no structure to the limbs.

There are many more examples, but you don't really want to know, do you?
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 26, 2009 3:02 PM EDT
by hower4 August 26, 2009 5:29 AM EDT
___________________

Don't mess with the U.S. or you will be beaten to a pulp, in more ways then one......period
by hower4 August 26, 2009 3:20 PM EDT
Please tell us, in what way did Manadel al-Jamadi, Dilawar and the others "mess with the US" that caused them to be beaten to a pulp?
by hamiltoningrate August 25, 2009 7:45 PM EDT
Isn't all of govt a haphazard process ?

hello ...

Why should anyone expect that the govt should be able to run all of health care if it can't even do this ???
Reply to this comment
by readingbetweenlines August 25, 2009 7:04 PM EDT
Or tell it to Bill Clinton - under oath.
Reply to this comment
by readingbetweenlines August 25, 2009 6:47 PM EDT
I am fully aware of trickle-down etc., and no, I am not just blaming the democratic house during the last two Bush years. What I am saying is stop blaming everything on the Republicans, even though they have made more than their share of mistakes. It took several administrations to get us were we are today. Republicans and Democrats are in this together, they have created this. Now lets all be Americans and work together to overcome this mess.
Reply to this comment
by areuforreal August 25, 2009 7:21 PM EDT
I agree that we should come together to work out these problems. However if you listen to Rush or other far right radicals, that would be un american. You are also correct about the blame. Both parties are guilty however it is the repub's who rant against every idea the dem's come up with. Politics should not be an issue here. Helping our fellow citizens should be the issue. Some say why should I help pay for someone else? The answer is simple. Most americans are 1 illness away from joining the ranks of the uninsured.
As long as we have 47 million without healthcare, we are heading toward a financial breakdown. Healthcare as a profit motivated industry is killing needlessly.
by woeisme1 August 25, 2009 6:47 PM EDT
Hey! You American Taliban Revolutionary Republican Fascists. Since you are so into guns and hate that Khadafi's son was released from prison, Khadafi is coming to New Jersey next month.

Central Park banned him there. He wanted to actually camp out there. So now it's New Jersey.

Why don't you stop with the lies about Obama and his policies, and focus your racist hatred on Khadafi? I mean I don't hear no protest about that!!!

Maybe you guys could go there and waterboard him. No?
Reply to this comment
by readingbetweenlines August 25, 2009 6:39 PM EDT
You only think that you understand! You are sooo far off...
Reply to this comment
by readingbetweenlines August 25, 2009 6:35 PM EDT
Just because an issue is "settled" does not make it right. I feel sorry for you. A woman's rights? A woman has the right to kill? I will not get over it, because it is torture of the worst kind. Do a little thinking. You can't have it both ways.
Reply to this comment
by drsam8 August 25, 2009 6:33 PM EDT
The perennial question is: Will America remain A NATION OF LAWS? Attorney General Eric Holder might yet prove to us in the present era that, truly, no one is above the law. As against an earlier argument advanced by Dick Cheney and some Republicans, the end does not justify the means. Western democracies have long discarded such an argument. In some Moslem countries, they cut off body parts of prisoners in their search for truth, or for sheer revenge. Can we do this, and still be different?and better? Some have argued that Eric Holder has not gone far enough?as he placed an unwarranted limit on what may be probed. Some human rights groups have called for a full probe. Without doubt expediency dictates Eric Holder?s more limited action. He is duty-bound under the Constitution to uphold the law?without bias or special favors to the powerful. Thus will he demonstrate to the world the sanctity and integrity of the American legal system. Some like Dick Cheney may beg to differ. In fact, Cheney?s attitude suggests his contempt for the law. Thus he openly disagrees with his boss for not giving full pardon to ?Scooter? Libby. Cheney hovers menacingly over our current political horizon, still kicking, still arguing that we are stronger and more secure as a nation by doing things that are over the top, things that clearly violet American and international law. We should not fall for such a sugar-coated approach to governance. We are better off as a nation of laws! aGAINST some people's preference that we do nothing, or Cheney's claim that he is protecting CIA operatives whom he really abused in his vigilante approach to governing, many of us would simply say, stay tuned, DICK!
Reply to this comment
by readingbetweenlines August 25, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
Hmmm, guess guess what... I am from Europe.
Reply to this comment
See all 228 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook