UNCLASSIFIED
(TS// //NF) On the day that Abu Zubaydah was captured, CIA attorneys discussed interpretations of the criminal prohibition on torture that might permit CIA officers to engage in certain interrogation activities.[1] An attorney in CTC also sent an email with the subject line "Torture Update" to CTC Legal , listing, without commentary, the restrictions on interrogation in the Geneva Conventions, the Convention
Against Torture, and the criminal prohibition on torture.[2]
(TS// //NF) In late March 2002, anticipating its eventual custody of Abu Zubaydah, the CIA began considering options for his transfer to CIA custody and detention under the MON. The CIA rejected U.S. military custody , in large part because of
the lack of security and the fact that Abu Zubaydah would have to be declared to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).[3] The CIA's concerns about custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, included the general lack of secrecy and the "possible loss of control to US military and/or FBI.[4] Rendition to Country was rejected because of the perception that the results of that country's recent interrogations had been disappointing, as well as the intense interest in Abu Zubaydah from CIA leadership. As ALEC Station wrote, the CIA needed to participate directly in the interrogation, "[n]ot because we believe necessarily we can improve on [Country ] performance, but because the reasons for the lack of progress will be transparent and reportable up the line."[5]
(TS// //NF) Over the course of four days, the CIA settled on a detention site in Country because of that country's " ," and the lack of U.S. court jurisdiction. The only disadvantages identified by the CIA with detention in Country were that it would not be a "USG-controlled facility" and that "diplomatic/policy decisions" would be required.[6] As a March 28, 2002, CIA document acknowledged, the proposal to render Abu Zubaydah to Country had not yet been broached with that country's officials. The document also warned: "[w]e can't guarantee security. If AZ's presence does become known, not clear what the impact would be."[7]
'(TS// //NF) The decision to detain Abu Zubaydah at a covert detention facility in Country did not involve the input of the National Security Council Principals Committee, the Department of State, the U.S. ambassador, or the CIA chief of Station in Country .[8] On March 29, 2002, an email from the Office of the Deputy DCI stated that "[w]e will have to
- ↑ March 29, 2002, email from [REDACTED] to , cc: John Rizzo, [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], subject, NEW INFO; A-Z Interrogation Plan ("I have thought about the 18 USC sect. 2340 issues we briefly discussed yesterday.").
- ↑ Email from: [REDACTED]; to: ; subject; Torture Update; date: March 28, 2002, at 11:28:17 AM.
- ↑ 19595 (281106Z MAR 02). PowerPoint presentation, Options for Incarcerating Abu Zubaydah, March 27, 2002.
- ↑ PowerPoint presentation, Options for Incarcerating Abu Zubaydah, March 27, 2002. PowerPoint presentation, Options for Incarcerating Abu Zubaydah, March 28, 2002.
- ↑ ALEC (282105Z MAR 02)
- ↑ PowerPoint presentation, Options for Incarcerating Abu Zubaydah, March 27, 2002.
- ↑ PowerPoint presentation, Options for Incarcerating Abu Zubaydah, March 28, 2002.
- ↑ Email from: [REDACTED] ; to: James Pavitt; subject: DCI Decision on [DETENTION SITE GREEN] Briefing for Armitage; date: September 26, 2002; DIRECTOR ( MAR 02).
Page 22 of 499
UNCLASSIFIED
