Name: Exploiting individual phobias, e.g. use of dogs Source: DOD Working Group memo; Memorandum from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorizing interrogation practices for use in Iraq Description: When "fear up" doesn't work, interrogators may actively stimulate a detainee's fears. Pentagon lawyers described this tactic as "increasing anxiety by use of aversions." Photos from Abu Ghraib show a detainee seated before a large, snarling military police dog (a full-grown German shepherd, for example). This technique may be followed by a threat to repeat the scare session or to let the dog off the leash so it could tear into the detainee's flesh. The tactic can also be conducted in public areas to scare other detainees. Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Severe emotional distress; paranoia; physical manifestations of the fear such as high heart rate, increased blood pressure, and uncontrolled urination and defecation. Locations Used: Iraq, Guantanamo Bay Legal Opinion: Army intelligence doctrine does not directly speak to dog use because the dogs belong to military police units. Military police doctrine does not allow threatening use of dogs. The Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on physical and mental coercion also prohibit the use of dogs in this manner. The Army lawyer who proposed the use of dogs at Guantanamo concluded that it was permissible if done for an important governmental objective, without intent to cause harm or prolonged mental suffering. This analysis reflects the U.S. reservations to signing the CAT and the ICCPR. But the lawyer's conclusion may be wrong because the U.S. reservation to the CAT defines impermissible psychological torture as "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering." Army Field Manual 34-52 categorizes food deprivation as a form of "physical torture." |