Perspectives on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (25 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Jan. 8, 2016 |
| Report Number |
R43906 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Anne Daugherty Miles, Analyst in Intelligence and National Security Policy |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised July 9, 2015 (20 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised May 14, 2015 (19 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Feb. 10, 2015 (15 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Among the issues in the discussion and debate following the December release of the 'Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) Detention and Interrogation (D&I) Program (SSCI Study)' has been the CIA's use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) on certain individuals labelled 'high value detainees' (HVDs). Initially, EITs were requested by the CIA for those individuals it labelled HVDs who were thought to possess 'actionable' knowledge about 'imminent' terrorist threats against the United States and were resisting 'non-aggressive, non-physical elicitation techniques.' At that time, Standard Interrogation Techniques (SITs) were defined by CIA guidelines 'as techniques that do not incorporate significant physical or psychological pressure. These techniques include, but are not limited to, all lawful forms of questioning employed by U.S. law enforcement and military interrogation personnel,' whereas EITs 'do incorporate physical or psychological pressure beyond Standard Techniques. [â¦] This report discusses views expressed on issues related to EITs by public officials, academics and commentators in a variety of sources to include the 'SSCI Study, Minority Views of SSCI Members', 'Additional Views', official 'CIA Comments', unofficial comments by former CIA officials, the 'Congressional Record', and a number of press reports. Perspectives on EITs are multifaceted, and range from those who say 'never again' to their future use to those who argue they are a necessary tool in an interrogator's toolbox. This report does not purport to, nor should it be interpreted as, determining the merit of any one perspective.
