Name: "Fear up"mild and harsh

Source: FM 34-52

Description: For example, the "dagger on the table" technique, in which an interrogator places a military knife on the table in plain view to make the implicit threat of stabbing the detainee. Or if an interrogator knows that a detainee is religious, he might focus on the detainee's fear of damnation by exposing the detainee to pornographic materials. In the most explosive form of this approach, "fear up harsh," according to FM 34-52, "the interrogator behaves in an overpowering manner with a loud and threatening voice. The interrogator may even feel the need to throw objects across the room to heighten the source's implanted feelings of fear."

Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Such questioning may rise to the level of psychological coercion or mental duress, according to FM 34-52.

Locations Used: Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan

Legal Opinion: Generally acceptable up to a point. In its manual for interrogators, the Army recognizes the legal risk of violating the Geneva Convention's prohibition against the use of coercion and threats. Article 17 of the 3rd Geneva Convention does not allow "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" in interrogation. Article 31 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that "[n]o physical or moral coercion shall be exercised to obtain information." The conventions also prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." In deciding to withhold Geneva protection for al-Qaida detainees, President Bush removed these prophylactic rules.

Without Geneva, the limits on interrogation come from the 1994 Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the federal anti-torture statute for civilian personnel, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military personnel. The CAT defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person...by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Article 16 of the CAT requires signatory states to affirmatively stop any official "acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture." The U.S. Senate ratified the CAT and the ICCPR with the understanding that the U.S. would be bound to the extent that cruel, unusual, and inhuman treatment or punishment are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Mental torture, in particular, was narrowly defined as "prolonged mental harm caused by (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration of mind-altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat of imminent death, severe physical suffering, or application of mind-altering substances to another."

The U.S. ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with the same understanding that its prohibitions would only go as far as U.S. Constitutional limits on official conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional for government actors to use force they plausibly could have thought necessary to achieve a legitimate government objective, if the force is applied in good faith without malice or sadism. The U.S. government does not believe, however, that the CAT and ICCPR offer any protection to detainees held outside the United States.

Psychological tactics like "fear up" are unlikely to violate this permissive standard. Under the standards embraced by international courts like the European Court of Human Rights, however, these techniques would violate the CAT, ICCPR, and the Geneva Conventions, regardless of the detainees' status.

The UCMJ provisions addressing assault and the communication of a threat may also prohibit "fear up" if the tactic includes a threat of death or serious bodily harm.