In the mess of documents released yesterday, Greg Sargent points to a description of the "rendition process"--something the government has argued in court is a state secret in order to urge the dismissal of lawsuits from torture victims. The description of rendition is harrowing enough, but the document sets a pretty high standard that has to be met for a HVD (High Value Detainee) not to be tortured. According to the document:
Interrogators use the Initial Interview to assess the initial resistance posture of the HVD and to determine--in a relatively benign environment--if the HVD intends to willingly participate with CIA interrogators. The standard on participation is set very high during the Initial Interview. The HVD would have to willingly provide information on actionable threats and location information on High-Value Targets at large--not lower level information--for interrogators to continue with the neutral approach.
What's beyond the neutral approach? The document identifies three categories of interrogation techniques, previously alluded to in the torture memos: Conditioning techniques ( forced nudity, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation) Corrective techniques ("Insult slap", "Abdominal slap", "Facial Hold", "Attention grasp" and Coercive techniques (walling, stress positions, water dousing, and cramped confinement [stuffing someone in a box]).
In other words, if you're categorized as an HVD, unless you provide solid, actionable intelligence immediately, then you're going to be tortured.
Keep in mind that Abu Zubayda gave up all of the useful intelligence he had under traditional interrogation. But he was then waterboarded 83 times, as well as stuffed in a confinement box with gunshot wounds, because the CIA thought he was holding something back. So cooperation was no actual guarantee of not being tortured. But then we already knew that.
-- A. Serwer
