By Cliff Montgomery – June 22nd, 2010
An important Pentagon directive was released in May, apparently meant to ensure the public that future interrogations of those in U.S. military custody follow the standards of national and international law.
Yet a close analysis of the directive reveals that it fails to cover all questioning by military personnel.
The Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) is entitled, Videotaping or Otherwise Electronically Recording Strategic Intelligence Interrogations of Persons in the Custody of the Department of Defense.
“This DTM establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides uniform guidelines for videotaping or otherwise electronically recording each strategic intelligence interrogation of any person who is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense, or under detention in a DoD facility,” according to the memo.
Perhaps most impressive, a comprehensive statement is provided of those who are subject to the directive:
- OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense [DoD], the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense.
- DoD military personnel, DoD civilian employees, and DoD contractor personnel, to the extent incorporated in their contracts, who conduct or support strategic intelligence interrogations.
- Non-DoD personnel who agree, as a condition of permitting them access to conduct strategic intelligence interrogations, to comply with its terms, including other U.S. Government agency personnel, interagency mobile interrogation teams, and foreign government personnel.
- DoD and non-DoD law enforcement and counter-intelligence personnel who conduct or support strategic intelligence interrogations.
The essential purpose of the directive also is made clear:
“An audio-video recording shall be made of each strategic intelligence interrogation of any person who is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a DoD facility, conducted at a theater-level detention facility.”
But “this requirement applies only to strategic intelligence interrogations.” [Emphasis added.]
A recently passed law entitled, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, “specifically excludes from this requirement members of the Armed Forces engaged in direct combat operations and DoD personnel conducting tactical questioning.” [Emphasis added.]
So what is the difference between strategic intelligence interrogations and tactical questioning?
- A strategic intelligence interrogation is “an intelligence interrogation of any person who is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a DoD facility, conducted at a theater-level detention facility,” according to a glossary at the end of the memo.
- Tactical questioning refers to “the expedient initial questioning for information of immediate tactical value. Tactical questioning is generally performed by members of patrols, but can be done by any DoD personnel. Tactical questioning is limited to direct questioning.”
There also are waiver and suspension provisions provided in a memo attachment, as well as interesting instructions on the proper way to handle an equipment failure:
“Recording technicians will inspect the recording equipment prior to each interrogation session to ensure that it is functioning properly. If the recording equipment fails for any reason (e.g., mechanical malfunction, power outage), backup equipment (e.g., a battery-powered camcorder) will be used.
“[But] If the backup equipment fails, the interrogation center commander may authorize the unrecorded interrogation of individual detainees on a case-by-case basis based on ‘exigent circumstances’.
“Exigent circumstances exist when the information expected to be collected from the detainee is necessary to support ongoing or imminent military operations or to save human life.”
Because many–if not most–interrogations supposedly are conducted “to support ongoing or imminent military operations or to save human life,” it perhaps should be taken as a given that the majority of interrogations will continue in the midst of recording equipment failures.
