Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Not logged in
Log in | Help

The September and October Sanchez memos (3/29/05)

From dKosopedia


The September and October Sanchez memos (3/29/05)

Covered by: churchofhuckfinn @ aka Tirge Caps


September 14, 2003 Memo

The September Sanchez memo, is General Sanchez's model for Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy. Sanchez was the commanding officer of Combined Joint Task Force Seven, who's mission was to conduct offensive operations aimed at defeating "noncompliant" forces.

This is the memo the ACLU has requested the AG that Sanchez be open to a perjury investigation.

Sanchez states at the beginning of the memo that this policy has been "modeled on the one implemented for interrogations conducted at Guantánamo Bay, but modified for applicability to a theater of war in which the Geneva Conventions apply. Unless otherwise directed, my intent is to implement this policy immediately."

The second page introduces his intent: that this memo establishes the policy, he has approved of the following techniques, for some they require a written request and his approval.

Those techniques which require personal approval are:

B (S/NF)(U) Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege, above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention, from detainees. [Caution: Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protection may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see, Geneva III, Article 34).]
• He doesn't specifically forbid Koran desecration.
I Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to an EPW. [Caution: Article 17 of Geneva III provides, "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva.]
• For some reason this seems contradictory. How can the technique be inconsistent with Geneva if he instructs this to not occur beyond the limits applied to EPWs?
O (S/NF)(U) Mutt and Jeff: A team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator. The harsh interrogator might employ the Pride and Ego Down technique.[Caution: Other nations that believe that EPW protections apply to detainees may view this technique as inconsistent with Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that EPWs must be protected against acts of intimidation. Consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.]

X. (S/NF)(U) Isolation: Isolating the detainees from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment. [Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approval for extensions of the length of isolation by the 205th MI BDE Commander. Use of this technique for more than 30 days, whether continuous or not, must be briefed to 205th MI BDE Commander prior to implementation.

Y. (S/NF)(U) Presence of Military Working Dog: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations. Dogs will be muzzled and under the control of MWD handler at all times to prevent contact with detainee.

AA. (S/NF)(U) Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury.

CC. (S/NF)(U) Stress Positions: Use of physical postures (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, ect.) for no more than 1 hour per use. Use of technique(s) will not exceed 4 hours and adequate rest between use of each position will be provided.

Two things I notice right off

1) Techniques that skim the intent of the Geneva Conventions need his approval, and he doesn't ever state, instruct, order that the Convention be adhered to, only considered.
2)The general safeguards seem to have been ignored on at least several occasions.

October 12 2003 Memo

The purpose of this memo is similar to the one from September. The difference is the October memo deals with "security internees".

A security internee is a civilian detained pursuant to Article 5 and 78 of the Geneva Conventions.

This memo provides for the use of segregation of internees, and states that the interrogator "should appear to be the one who controls all aspects of the interrogation, including lighting, heating, configuration of the room, food, heating, clothing and shelter.

Sanchez states the policy set forth in this memo supercedes the Sept 14th memo and its policies.

Has Sanchez changed the wording from "enemy prisoners of war" to "security internees"

The Oct. memo has a dozen fewer interrogation approaches than the previous one. It appears Sanchez has removed some of the more questionable tactics, such as the use of dogs and the use of stress positions.

Another difference between this memo and the earlier one, is Sanchez does not indicate any particular technique, save one, requiring a written request and subsequently subject to his approval before use.

The only exception is in the use of segregation consisting of more than 30 days total.

Some of the techniques are vague:

E Fear Up Harsh: Significantly increasing the fear level in a security internee

This could be interperted in a variety of ways.

He does mention dogs in the end of the General Safeguard. He instructs that, in the event of their use, they must be muzzled and under the supervision of the handler. In the Sept. memo, dogs were on the list of techniques, not safeguards.

One other thing I find interesting is this last General Safeguard:

• While approaches are considered individually within this analysis, it must be understood that in practice, approaches are usually used in combination. The title of a particular approach is not fully descriptive of a particular approach.' The cumulative effect of all approaches to be employed must be considered before any decision is made regarding approval of a particular interrogation plan.

• Who's approval? General Sanchez has already approved everything listed except extended segregation.

• Also, three techniques which previously required pre-approval, Incentive Removal, Pride Ego Down, and Mutt and Jeff, are not singled-out in this memo.

• While removing, the bottom twelve techniques listed in the Sept memo, Sanchez also removed pre-approval on those three techniques left on the list.


ACLU FOIA Releases

FOIA:Detention Practices Project

Link to September memo released 3/29/05

Link to October memo released 3/29/05

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../t/h/e/The_September_and_October_Sanchez_memos_%283_29_05%29_4461.html"

This page was last modified 22:09, 8 June 2005 by dKosopedia user Tirge Caps. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ

View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes

Special pages
Bug reports