Transcript of Second Interview at RusseIl Offices with Major George O'Kane

and Mr lHichael Pezzullo, L TeOt Hoy Abbott and lVis Mignon Patterson
- 9 Jun 04
Note: Major George O'Kane
M r Michael Pezzullo
tTCOL Roy ,\i;t-i;;ti-
lVis Mignon Patterson
GK
lVIPZ
RA.
MP
MPZ: George, thanks very much for spending some time with us yet again. It's
currently June I Olh at 1045 in the morning. What r want to do now George is
talk for a few minutes talking about rep0l1ing process - our reporting process
[0 the extent that r am able to- obviously some of these decisions are yet to be
taken by the CDP and SEC and the Minister ultimately. And then I want to get
clarity of the issues, because I have been reading back into the issues that have
been coming up in the Parliament in the earlier period, that lines up with the
earlier period of your tour .. which goes less to detention treatment and the
[CRC and more to interrogation matters. J just feel for the need for the
completeness for the repOli to the Minister, we just need to clarify that because
of the questions that have been asked, both in the transcIipt of the proceedings
and in the Questions on Notice now. And then I am going to depart just after
I'
!
J J to prepare for a meeting with the CDF and the SEC and the Minister, and
then 1 will leave you with Roy and Mignon.
-----_._-<.

,j \ ,
V/hose name is well known. So you are asked to prepare, as 1 understand it
bc.c2-,use you are the point of contact on a memorandum - 28 August
:vlcrnoranduTll, Navyl its not signed) but I'm assuming that - do we think ifs
)he final or.. ,,';
Can I give the baclq,'Touncl to this?
\liP?: Sure.
CiK: A couple of clays before, this Memorandum was raised as a result of our
attendance the day before at the prison, the first time that I went there in the
company of the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, because what this was about
was they had requested some I egal input into intclTogation techniques on a
particular High Value Detainee. Now I had to gct 1ha1\eared through the
chain of command. I snoke to ColoneI!!. qlj and then Colonel
Air Commodore Bentley It the same time, where permission was
'granted to me to attend for tllis purpose, as long as it related only to advice for
that particular person.
ivIPZ: That one person?
Cor<> That onc person.
'vlPZ: Can you describe, without going to COmpaliments etc, can you describe who
that person was? Was it a BVD of allY palticular. .... ?
OK: No, 1 can't recall now. 1 don't think it's recorded on the memorandum.
MPZ: Nothing strikes you about the person, associated with weapons of mass
destruction, a central terrorist. .. ?
GK: I dOll't know who he was. It was a name that I was not familiar with. It's fair
10 say that I wasn)t familiar with a lot of names,
iviPZ: because youlrc not there as an int officer) yOl/re not shaping the int
pjctl.lre are you. ')
Ci<: They had a HVD. W]H:n we actually went -first of all J got my approval, then
it took a day or two where J had to coordinate with the intenogation company
as 'Nell (0 make sure that they were fI'ee to meet.
.\(P/. This '5 out (lfthe 205'il')
-I . f' I 20 - Ih c
I,K I ,KO' re a company TOm t lC ). They were aciually ruerred to as .
:\"IP1> This is a special interrogation compeny or something.. ()
elK: 'Facili!y lraq': that's right.
MPZ: So you did the liaison. I think we've gone over the ground of the history of it.
. I What I Just want to ask you about and 1 don ' t
~ .. - go to the ment of the OpInIOn - I'm not a lawyer and in a sense that's not my
remit. There is a di scussion about something called "interrogation TTPs" -
what ' s a TIP?
GK: That's techniques, tactics " "I've forgotten myself what the full acronym
stands for ..... but it's interrogation practices ....... something like that.
MPZ: In military parlance, is that like ROEs - as Rules of Engagement, like the
framework in which an interrogator works?
GK: They're the specific techniques that they're plalU1ing to
MPZ: Can you recall any? Can you name some?
GK: Sleep management, dietary manipulation . .
~ 1 P Z : Like you can't sleep, you can sleep or whatever ?
GK: Dietary manipulation.
Iv1 P Z: What does that mean?
GK: They may restrict when the meals are actually provided. Not to the point
where there is medical danger. Instead of having lunch at 12 o'clock, it might
not be unti l 4 o'clock.
MPZ: I will ask you one legal issue - because I'm a babe in these woods - wouldjt
be your view in intemationallaw, when you say dietary manipulation, you
can't starve someone to death.
GK: No, of course not. That would be inhumane and that is an example given by
the ICTY, the International ........... .. Courts for the former Yugoslavia.
Those decisions do actually define inhumane treatment as starvation of
detainees.
MPZ: Because doing sleep and dietary - what else?
GK: There could have been sensory deprivation. Once again these are onl y for
limited periods of time.
MPZ: But no objective thresholds - there is just a judgement about length? So if we
kept you sitting here for 6 weeks and no food, that's torture and inhumane.
But if! rush off because I have to go to the Secretary in 10 minutes, then these
guys give you a nice pleasant time, then that's not torture?
GK: No, of course not. It's personal value and it's intensity and duration of a
particular event that will cause it to cross that line. Of course, it's going to
depend on different people as well.
MPZ: Yes, it dependant on the person - whether they're a child, an old person,
if you have a robust man .......
GK: That's right. Some one who is trained to resist interrogation, all those sorts of
issues come into play.
MPZ: Sure, sure. Can 1 ask you this question, this is what I am leading to. This is
what I am concerned about. An ADF officer being named, you know there is
a name there ..... violence ... these techniques
GK: Definitely not violence.
MPZ: Can I ask the question? These techniques are, if you like, are not the actual
techniques of how to deprive someone of sleep. It's, if you like a procedure,
and then the interrogators work out how to apply it.
GK: TheY'\'e got their own manual to apply it to and their own training on how to
apply, that's correct.
\ [PZ: Can you recall any classes and this seems to be a step above the tools that you
actually use. These are the categories: sensory deprivation, dietary
manipUlation, sleep management. This is really important - can you try very
hard to recall any category that could to a reasonable person infer application
of violence or trauma, possibly induced by the fear of violence being imparted
on you. You understand where r am going here.
GK: Yes, I understand.
-MBZ; A--PlFSElR-GweFifl-g-in-frent of a cell door with military dogs; 'straining at the
leash. I need to ask you this George.
GK: No, it' s good to ask that. There was no reference in that document that I
recall. I can't recall the document - if! can't recall it, there was nothing in
there that caused me concern.
MPZ: About the actual or potential application of violence? We have to be really
precise here George.
GK: There may be a perceived threat of violence.
MPZ: Which is permissible in this framework?
GK: Yes, at the highest level perceived .. ...
MPZ: What do you mean by the highest level?
GK: There is never any position or any understanding to carry through and actually
perform that violence.
MPZ: So it's alright to dunk someone's head under cold water?
GK: Yes, I'd say that is an actual act.
MPZ: That's an actual act?
GK: Yes, that's an actual assault.
MPZ: That's a bodi ly assault isn't it?
GK: Yes.
MPZ: OK. But how do you impart a perceived threat of violence though if you don't
have a credible back-up? If you're just pouncing around, mate I'm going to
give you a perceived threat of violence, you'd say soft cocks around here.
Don't you have to sort of build an atmosphere whereby the person might come
to believe that violence is in prospect?
GK: OK. I may not have got that right. The way they understand it is that due to the
circumstances of the person's detention they may perceive violence.
[Note: Maj or O' Kane commented that trained interrogators can explain this more
accurately.]
6
"
MPZ: As a prospect?
GK: As a potential threat. And given the .....
MPZ: What about seeing it though? I can induce a perceived threat of violence in
Mignon:iH-tak-eReyever ttl the eomerandbeltthecrap"Out of him and say,
you' re next. So I don't do anything to her.
GK: That's right. That would not be permissable.
MPZ: Because I'm assaulting him - can assault you Roy? You've pushed me to the
edge a couple oftimes in the last week mate (laughter).
GK: ' They exploit - this is my understanding, but you may have to talk to an
interrogator to explain.
MPZ: But you were talking to the interrogators.
GK: I was but we didn't discuss this. I've tried to explain what my understanding
of the techniques are but .... They're captured, and given their experiences
with the former regime for example, that particular facility, there would be
fear. Saddam used it, tens of thousands of people were executed there, it was
used for torture and so forth, it has a fearsome reputation for the Iraqi people.
That's not the reason that the US used it. It was because it was the only
facility standing that ...
MPZ: They should have sent the job order to me. I would have whacked them up
one, thrown a bit of greenbook money going.
GK: But then you would have to guard the bricks so they don't get stolen during
the night by the local population. They're not supposed to go on and
contribute to that fear, but they're not supposed to give comfort. Like, mate
you'll be OK. They' ll say nothing because the atmosphere .. .
MPZ: So no comfort, but no activation of the threat?
GK: No activation of the threat.
MPZ: I am with you.
GK: But in some cases they may choose to - once again it depends on the
personal ity, who they're dealing with - they may choose to actually give the
person five-star treatment, reassuring ... They'll test whichever techniques
psychologically will work best on that particular detainee.
MPZ: So ifl'm getting smoozed they might find .....
GK: They might find that the colleague type of approach, and this isn't the
language that's used, might be ...... this isn't the language they use . .. there's a
number of different ... they'll make a psychological assessment of the person,
this is what's supposed to happen and then they'll try to use the best technique
that's best fo r that person or individual.
\1PZ' Look that' extremel y useful. Thi s is a world of practices and processes that
very few people _ _, _
GJK hook. I'm gomg to get a chance to go back ana re-.,iise tnlsaren;i f, because
I' m really . . '
\1 PZ: Sure, You mean the transcript.
GK: Yes, the transcript. Because I'm talking off the top of my head here. For
example, the threat of violence, having thought about it. Yes, there is an aura
offear generated in some cases. Once again, its temporary and it's not real or
it' s not supposed to be real.
MPZ: Can I ask you this question, and it would be remiss of me to not ask you this
question. You' re dealing with the interrogation company, and we both know
that they became subsequently world notorious. You said to me the other day,
in a somewhat throwaway line, that looking back over my time, you can
almost see that there was' a wink and a nod' factor at play and whilst you were
personally, as I understand it, reviled by the depraved images you saw in
April, you get the feeling - and we've all got 2020, all perfect 2020. I'm 2020
Roy's 2020, Mign's 2020, we are all 2020 - do you look back now and see the
'wink and a nod' or did you feel the 'wink and a nod' contemporaneously at
Ihe time?
GK: There was no 'wink and a nod' at that particular meeting. The only reason
that, .. was that I heard of more efficient processes being introduced was
becaus e Maj or General Miller from Guantanomo Bay arriving, and then it
became ,. ,this was like two to three weeks later ..
MPZ: Which Commander; 5't1 !organi ses ..
G K: I don' t know about Commander/ 5 41 I But that's when - once again thi s is
in Ihe context of, I' ve probably said thi s before, peopl e having their limbs
blown off, chil dren being killed dail y. If you' ve got the int elligence from the
interrogation, if you ' ve got the informat ion you can stop that happening. If
"ou don' t get it -this is not a theoreti cal questi on - people wi ll die tomorrow.
1(, a life and death game" ,it 's a li fe and death game. And they don't have the
lUXUry of time. and they' lI either get that information quickly or they won't get
it and IheY"'e missed the opportuni ty. I don't know if we went into thi s at the
last inten'iew. but when we got there, after having discussed it wi th the OI C of
the company, they weren't reall y aft er legal confi rmati on of what they were
doing. because they were after,.
\!PZ: \\ 'elL \\-ere vou son ofa ' blow-in' to use an Australian phrase. Is there a sense
(If ' ''e ha"e to talk to the lawyers, but vou know. get them through and .. . ).
\
OK: They were very happy to see us. They really appreciated us coming out to
them.
MPZ: Were they concerned about their own legal position do you think?
OK: They were because they were under investigation from a death in Afghanistan.
The same company had come directly from Afghanistan to Iraq. They were
tired, hadn't been horne for 12 months. Because of this investigation, they
wanted 'top cover'. And legal was just a stepping stone from the Corp
Headquarters to get that top cover.
MPZ: Sorry, let me get that clear. So the company through their chain of command
seeks legal opinion or V Corp sends it down to them?
OK: No, they've sought it and we've gone down to discuss the issue. When we got
there, it wasn't what it seemed to be.
MPZ: What do you mean?
OK: Well we went out there to discuss the legality of their techniques, but really
we didn't even get on to that. Really what happened was that they really
wanted ... we did discuss some things generally, but what they really wanted
was someone to take responsibility higher up the chain of command, higher
than legal, for someone to take responsibility for their interrogation
techniques. So this is an interim advice. That's that last sentence in that
paragraph. Paragraph three.
MPZ: 'This advice is subject to approval". So you didn't work on that thereafter?
OK: That's right, I gave it as I was walking out the door to the Deputy as I was
down to Babylon for the transfer of authority from the Marines to the Polish
division. And when I came back - a week, eight or nine days had gone by, a
hundred things had happened -and I just said to him in passing, did that letter
go? And he didn't know, he just goes, I think so.
MPZ: And your previous information to us is that you didn't think ... sorry, the
whole thing went NOFORN after a period .. .
OK: Then very shortly after that, so we're now talking towards the middle of
September. The next time the question of, and that's when I heard that
MAJGEN Miller was coming out and that's when I've made the deduction
that in fact their interrogation is not providing the results that they need.
MPZ: Sure ... implicit.
OK: You've got to remember every 12 hours, there's significant acts (you've got it
in the material you've got), every 12 hours, you don't know what's going on
in the rest of the world. All we are focusing on is who's been killed and
blown up in Iraq. That is in your face 24 hrs a day besides the attacks on your
own location and so forth. Clearly there was a huge amount of pressure to stop
the US casualties and the only way they're going to get that is by getting the
infonnation through interrogation. So when we heard that MAJGEN Miller,
you know, it was discussed in the office, that he was coming to review
interrogation practices ..
he WaS coming from?
GK: He was coming from Guantamo Bay. And it's to be assumed that the
thresholds was going to be lifted somewhat. But it was NOFORN, it became
secret and went off to one of my US colleagues to then take on.
MPZ: Yes, but we discussed yesterday that there was a common room. You can't
recall the issue coming up after it went NOFORN?
GK: We had an inter-office discussion. He said "I can' t show this to you George".
10
----- -.--- -... -
MPZ: So these things, "law court s and complex international. ..... "(reading off
documents). It is reall y quite a complex field, it is how long is a piece of
string type of stuff No wonder you end up with big books like the one at the
end of the table that the tape recorder can't see. (Reading off documents) " ....
even though in extreme cases such as serious sexual assault .... . ", but there is
always a question of what is seri ous.
GK: We are talking about rape, induced abortions, rape camps, biting off the
testicles of other people, physical mutilation . ..
MPZ: And starvation and death. OK, so there is an outer limit which is basically
human morality.
GK: Inhumane treatment is how the courts describe that.
MPZ: Inhumane and that is like your unspoken 'can't do's'?
GK: Well if you try research humane in a legal context, while what you find is
there is not too much on what humane is, but there's a lot on what inhumane
is, so you are trying to define it by reference to those sort of ci rcumstances.
'v!PZ: OK, weill am just about done. That's intrigueing.
GK: One point, in paragraph one, I've written the policy substantially complies
with the Geneva Convention and also in paragraph three each TTP does not
substantially exceed the time.. I have used the word substanti ally and I
remember why. The reason is that when I looked at the US Army
interrogati on manual, it was very similar to the Austral ian manual, in that
there was ... For some things there was a time limit.
MPZ: So the manual is these TIPs?
GK: No the TTPs are drawn from the manual.
MPZ OK.
GK: But what is was, and as I' ve said before, the intensi ty and durati on determi nes
whether something becomes inhumane or not. And in some of the techniques
that are descrihed . . ".
MPZ: Keeping me on this taskforce beyond the 18'h June mi ght fit into that category.
Whereas keeping me here unt il tomorrow is probabl y OK.
OK: Right. But because there were no, in my opi ni on, there wasn' t suffici ent detai l
or safeguards in place in the manual to stop, for example, a cert ain technique
going too far, I wasn' t prepared to go, "categoricall y it compli es", but rather
"substantiall y complies". There was still room there ...
MPZ: So you are worried about this and so use substanti al...
OK: If it is appli ed properl y it will comply but ifpeople exploit it or go beyond the
intent of. . .
MPZ: But wouldn't the logical next thing to do, and I know you're busy at the time,
to then say, and you probably could get it more substantiall y compli ant if you
modified, improved, made clear . ..
OK: That wasn't our job though. That has to be done by the people who
sponsor. ...
MP: Who does that?
OK: ft has to be done by the sponsor of the US Army interrogation manual, the
in terrogati on people themselves and this would go back then to the US Army.
It is up to reall y the interrogators to raise .. We can give them advice but
they've got to produce whatever amendments or changes they require through
their sys tem, which would take a long time. The point is that it was onl y
supposed io be interim advice. We are just gi ving them some advice to cover
them until they can get. .
.\fPZ: So your are ass uming that some action subsequently occurs?
GK: . ..I, bsolutely, absolut ely, and that' s why there was an interrogation board and
we said look, th at 's got one stars offi cers on it. .
MPZ: And you didn't do any work in relation to that because you went down to talk
to the Poles or something didn't you?
GK: That ' s exactly right, there was a function and all the staff branches had to send
someone down to attend. The transfer from one cohesive war fighting
- country,-muiti-national diVision that doesn't even speak the
same language ..
MPZ: The Poles did very well at . ... Mate, I have two last questions before r must go
and then I will leave you in very capable hands.
RA: Can ljust ask one question, and that is - this letter. I' m just confused. You've
been saying that you have been called out by the int group? To get this sort of
interim cover and they're hoping not so much for your legal advice but layered
cover. That letter is in relation to what cover they wanted for what they did in
Afghanistan?
MP: lsit?
GK: No, the letter is for the individual person but the reason they want that cover is
for, as I understand it, they were under investigation at the time for another
incident.
RA: So therefore Iraq what they're wanting is rather than have another
investigation somewhere down the line, they're wanti ng get approval for what
they're doing in Iraq.
GK: Yes exactly.
RA: That's what [ wanted to clarify.
MPZ: Mate, I just have 3 quick questions. [ sai d 2, I lied. You then get. . . .I do want
to tease one thing back in the [CRC reports - [ think late November. .that
someone says to you .... ?
GK: They do, the last week of November. .....
MPZ: George, get on to this. OK you see in a visit to Bahgdad central detention
facility, the Abu Ghraib visit at 3. 1, we've taken you through this before.
There's leRC delegate witnesses of detainees with significant signs of
concentration difficulties, memory problems, problems with verbal expression,
incoherent speech, acute anxiety reactions, abnormal behaviour, suicidal ideas.
These symptoms appear to have been provoked by the interrogation period
and methods.
GK: Yes
\-1PZ: Some detainees were kept in total darkness - well I'm not scared of the dark.
Some detainess were kept naked in their cells . These are some of the
13
all egations, and I know then that Karpinski pushes back with a different view,
saying well .......
GK: The Military Poli ce and the interrogators had a different view .
. . -----MPZ: Obvious scars around wrists obviously caused by tight handcuffs . And I'm
tryi ng to put out ofrny head images of people draped over beds and stuff.
GK: It' s easy for me to do that because I can clearly think back to pre .....
MPZ: Yes, that ' s right, I am looking at this through April eyes. But you're not,
you're actually looking at through November. Some detainees wore female
underwear ... you've seen all this stuff.
GK: I haven't seen this since last year.
MPZ: Understood. You pulled it out for [' .'-\t IthOUgh.
GK: I didn't read it.
MPZ: No wornes. So you've actually got, you are probably one of the few
Austral ians, I suspect, probably on the face of the globe that has a pre-April
view of this. Can I ask you this question? And I do accept that we're post
April. But as best as you can, try to remember back to November. Did you
make a connection between the sorts of discussions you were having with the
Mis, the interrogators, who are now the subject of criminal proceedings in the
United States. The discussions you had with them around the fomntion of
this advice. You told us about this manual that you had examined, the TTPs
. we might just pin down with George later, this tactics, techniques and
what .. ?
GK: Procedures, and something else. That might be tactics, techniques and
procedures.
MPZ: I 've got to ask you this question. It' s easy for me doing the kind of historical
reconstrucion - I'm looking at this document, I'm looking at that document
and I' m saying, George gave them the advi ce, be careful and these guys
weren' t careful.
GK: Yes .
MPZ: Did you make that connection or did you through pace of work or
whatever .... [' m j ust trying to ..... ?
GK: To me the leRC report calls that ill treatment. To me the majority of those
techniques basically prove that interrogation is working. And the other thing
that the [CRe..
;v[PZ: Sorry what do you mean?
14
,.
GK: That interrogation is working, they're getting them .... these are the most
dangerous, violent people in Iraq, they should be, they're getting them into a
position where they're reducing their, they' re persuading them to cooperate,
this is where they're going. Once again you get infonnation to save lives. Now
those techniques to me when I read them, I've gone well this is - they call it ill
treatment, but we call it successful interrogation techniques. They're tired,
they're stressed for a period of time, but once again it doesn't point out that
this is might be for 72 hours.
MPZ: But what's the female underwear thing?
GK: Well, that's a humiliation issue.
MPZ: Can you do that? Is that part of the technique?
GK: Well, I've never heard of it before until - once again, the techniques
themselves don't actually go into 'put some female underwear on someone's
head.
MPZ: Right, because that is the MI's business, that's their tactical business. But
which category does that come under? I mean, sleep management, dietary
manipulation, 'fashion insult' .. .
GK: You know you're probably better speaking to interrogators because they can
reel off all the different sorts of approaches, but humiliation ...... .
MPZ: But hang on, in the legal framework that you're trying to help them with. And
remember, these guys are under investigation and they're saying, shit we'd
better get some lawyers, and it's not American lawyers talking to them, it's an
ADF lawyer, ADF values, we push force for good. We take a different view
of these things. Just draw me a connection. How does female underwear, as
you understand it, connect to any - not interrogation techniques, I accept that
you're not going to those issues, but you've tried to construct a global legal
framework where all the practices can be nicely slotted. You'd hope that
there's a practice not outside the legal framework like rape or death and so on ..
GK: Absolutely.
MPZ: So where does the underwear come in? I 'm not trying to triviali se this but.
GK: Well; that's not something that was ever discussed with them, but I understand
that that would be a process of trying to humiliate that particular person.
MPZ: But is that legal, where does that fit in? It's not sleep management, it's not
dietary manipulation ...
GK: No, but it's ....... you've only given me like three.
MPZ: So what' s the one that deals with humiliation? What's that called?
15
(
OK: That is a separate approach. It's like the approach 'good cop, bad cop' ...
humiliation ... not giving comfort. It' s an approach. And there might be cause
to use that for a short period of time and then switch to something else to
dislocate the person's expectations.
MPZ: So, in international law humiliation for a person of Muslim faith, "as evil as
they are", and I'm a Defence officer and these are people that are killing our
people in some cases ... ..
OK: And Iraqis as well .
MPZ: Correct, so just understand where I am coming from too. Humiliation, pig
meat. ...
OK: Because we're not talking about GC III Prisoners of War.
MPZ: I am not going here to legal distinctions, mate. I ' m going here to moral
framework, that's all. If there wasn't an ADF officer involved, we wouldn 't
give a shit. That's an American issue. It's an ADF officer sitting there. I'm
just trying to get your mental framework here. There are detainees of the
Muslim faith, some good some bad, some of them have just been swept up,
they've got certain issues about diet, they can't eat pork. So what do you do,
do you stuff pork down their mouths - the interrogators. You would argue that
the interrogators dictate the actual technique - what 's the legal, like meta-
category, that sits around stuffing pork down an Islamic person's throat?
GK: I'd say that would be an assault because you are physically forcing them ....
MPZ: But what about a plate of pork, that's all you are going to get mate - is that
manipUlation of diet? Connected to humiliation?
GK: That would be ... Yea, well. ...... .. .. .. ..
MPZ: Inhumane?
OK: It wouldn't be a technique that J would ..
MPZ: Is it in or out?
OK: I'd say that would be out.
MPZ: It's a really difficult area, mate, very difficult.
OK: It's a value judgement to the individual people subject to their own individual
experience and training and so on. I'd probably have, weil l know I have a
high threshold to Col Abbott for example.
MPZ: To what? I'd like to know about this, threshold to what?
GK: Threshold to what might be appropri ate . ...
16
MPZ (to RA): What is your threshold?
RA: I'm getting close to it.
(laughter)
GK: The point is there's children who no longer have mothers and fathers because
they've been killed. Ifsomeone's feelings are going to be hurt for short period
of time in order to get that information, then personally I think you've got
justification.
MPZ: It balances out doesn't it? You've got to make judgement that really
balances .....
GK: How do you explain to a family that's lost their husband or their brother or
sister, well, we didn't' get the information in time, because we ........ ".
MPZ: Because there was some legal mumbo jumbo that we kind of thought, well ,
you've got to stay on this side of the line .. ".
GK: We offered them a cup of tea with 3 sugars instead of 2. So .. "
MPZ: You've got to push it, you've really got to push it don't you?
GK: And the other thing is, you can't assault though ...
MPZ: But are you saying this at the time, mate. It's really important, because there's
an ADF legal officer at the centre at this debate.
GK: They knew, they knew that they couldn't assault.
MPZ: Are you telling them that they can't assault? Can you remember it? I'm just
trying to make the best case for ...... "
GK: I m pretty certain that that would definitely come out in discussions.
MPZ: You inferred it or you said it?
GK: That the best ... it 's just a standard given. The interrogators know that they
can't torture or assault.
MPZ: But they did, of course.
GK: Well, the MPs - and this is what is comes down to - I don't know, but I'm
assuming ... The US Army Military Intelligence, as far as I know, would not
have condoned what happened in those photographs, and I assume, and this is
now post Apri l - and assume that other Government agencies are the one's that
are involved. And picking a handful of MPs and Police Guards, and they're
17
(
(lie ones: and I've picked this up from media reporting) that have been given
Ihe (wink and a nod' to turn up the heat.
;APZ: So .you reckon it has come horn non-A.ll11Y,
Gl<: I'd he surprised if the US !\rmy Military Intelligence ... because they're lhe
... the an, \Jery stnct ... 'Jllcse arc comingfwm these private
contractors and so-forth.
!vIP7 Can you try not to look back through April though. Did you have any
awareness at the time of.. ?
(J)( I don't think I even saw any civili2Jl contractors there at the Time. Because I
had a meeting with all uniformed personnel.
MPZ: So 2020, you're thinking that that might have been what's going on?
GK: In fact, the first time that I found out that they had non-US military
interrogators was, I thinJe, was when I went on that operation to pick up that..
MPZ: On the ship.
CJK: The HVD. And that's where I met.
iviPZ: That \vas la.ter
l
wasn't it?
GK: Yes, that was laler. Thai was 17 December was Ihe lirsl time I had met
someone that wasn't..
MPZ: The lirst lime you'd met civilians.
(if(:
MPZ
CK:
\1PI:.
CK
That I was conscious of during my time there.
Mate, before Roy hits me, just two very quick questions. I notice tbe author
copies the memo to CJTF-7 C2. I wanl to ask you a question about them. The
Deputy C2 X is, of course, f.S41J. He's got a recollection of
having a discussion with you about what he mistakenly lodged in his survey,
and I mllst ask him about this, because it's in the survey that's now on the
SOD file. He thought the discussion was about interrogation ROEs. But
\.,l1on I pressed gently, It can'l be ROEs because he had NOFORN. Do you
remember having any kind of discussion with him and showing him any kind
o( docurnent')
I-fe's got a reasonably clear memory.
and \.jy disclission With Comn13l1dcr _lIVas, as I recail it, tumed around
! had a discussioll wilh WGCDRs41 as wcll aboul this, because wc
discussed it toget.her was about, and this \vas fairly shortly after I arrived it
1 g
had to do with what role he could actually play in the US AmlY interrogation
process, And he had a paliicularly issue because they wanted to use him,
\ ~ __- ~ . I J . in his unjfonll as a tool for a pmiicular infenogafion process for a
particular individual.
\/jPZ: And he said yes or no?
(JI<: j believe he said 110, He had to get that cleared, and the answer 10 that was no,
And he was just discussing that with me,
\1['1:: He's got a vague recollection of being shown a document, which for short
hand reasons he's calling ..
GK: Unless I did show him for particular purposes, it's in paragraph one of the
Memorandum for C2 X Ops being referred to that branch for comment It
may well have been that document. Now .. ,1 can't remember what that
document says, Now"
MPZ: Mate, I can't remember what I showed someone on 27 Aug last year. It was
probably something on Pt Nepean or.,
CK: It was nothing controversi ai, otherwise I'd remember it Just a standard, ,
Mi'l: Yes, he was a bit vaglJC about it to, He sort of,
CK: I m"y Well, because he was working in Ihe C2 X area, have had discussions
abollt this document.
MPZ: Well, the only reason I am chasing this is because Brown in rabbiting on
Clbout ROEs, so we've now touched on,
Ci](: J"ve never seen, ,Iirat came out after the fAiller visit and I never saw that
particular document
\ljPZ: OJ(, lind finally, I'm hoping you have a clear enough memory of this,
Australian National ireadqUClJ1erS Middle East Area of Operations directive
regarding embedded officers, standard template" ,you remember getting that
don't you?
CiK: Yes, I did get liraL
\1PZ: There is just the reference to .. ,"seck gllidance and reference to me the
Commander should your assigned duties or duties" ,to you by lhe coalition,
u1C!uding" ,detainees, ,custody control maintenance" ,proceedings
before lhe judiciary or other military tribunal.
CJl< i \va.s inciudcd in that dC2..red that with thcnl
1
yes.
'viPI'- intcrvic\v or intcnogation",
\9
GK: That's right. Interrogation was one of those issues that we had to get
clearance from and that's why I. ..
MPZ: That's right. Did you formally raise and get a tick, like written
type tick ... ?
GK: No. There could have ..
with Colonel Air Commodore Bentley in the corridor
of CJTF7 where it was decided to .. 164 \ 1 said I can't clear this, it has to go
to the Commander, so he had a discussion with WGCDRI""'4 well. And
in that foyer, he's gone OK, as long as it's in relation to an indi vidual and not
interrogation advice across the board.
MPZ: But I'm confu sed now. Is this about one person or
GK: This is about one person.
MPZ: Well sorry mate, not on my reading of it. It might be associated with your
visi t the day before about one person but. ...
GK: This memorandum that started it was about one person - one named
individual. So that is the context of the rest of the advice.
MPZ: I'm done. Have you got anything else from me. I' ve got to put a tie and a suit
on now and talk about managing up mate. We're going to be writing
furious ly, putting stuff together over the next 24 hours. So we are all in situ.
GK: Mike, the only point I would just like to clarify, and this is because of what
has been reported in the newspapers and the media this week about my advice
advising that the Geneva Conventions don't apply.
MPZ: The Karpinski letter, so call ed.
GK: Yes, the Karpinski letter. We need to make this clear, and jump in Si r if I am
mis-stating the position. But two different standards of treatment apply, two
different categories. The Geneva Conventions are all about limiting death and
injury in the civilian population. So at the most basic level it is about
separating your combatant s and your non-combatants. You can kill and
destroy each others combatants, whereas sparing destruction to the civilian
populat ion. Geneva III gives a whole li st of protections to some combatant
who is a Prisoner of War. That's captured in uniform and all the rest of it and
it's specifically enumerated into what privileges they get. When we get a
situation when we haven't got regular forces, and the Geneva Convention
recognises this. The people that put it together back then, were relatively
cluey. They recognised that in a situation where you haven't got people
distinguishing themselves. Where they are not complying with . .
\ 1PZ: Militia, underground.
20
GK: Guerilla fighters . One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and
that sort of thing. Where they cause the distinction to be muddied or not as
clear, or they take refuge, where its not as clear and they exploit the Geneva
Convention and take refuge in the civilian population as a non-combatant in
order to launch their attacks - well they don't get the protections that are in
GC Ill. And.Geneva IV actually says that. ...
MPZ: So they're out ofuniforrn, they're in this sort of blurred state ...
GK: And that is recognised specifi cally in Geneva Convention IV Article V.
That's what it says, they don' t get the privileges ... .
MPZ: As PWs ... But they're not outside the framework of general intemationallaw?
GK: Well, they're specificall y addressed in Geneva Convention IV Article V and it
specifically says there .. . thebottom line is, you know .... purposes of the
security of the State ... I should quote it. "Such individual persons should not
be entitled to claim such rights and privil eges under the present Convention
that would, if exercised in the favour of such individual, would be prejudi cial
to the security of the State". And there's another paragraph which goes on ...
MPZ: You've got to love lawyers, mate, you've got to love lawyers.
GK: But, there's not many incenti ves in the Geneva Convention. And my
understanding of this is that the basis for this is if they comply with the Law of
Anned Confli ct then if they distinguish themselves, fight the fight over there,
you don't cause . .. live or die ....
MPZ: If you get captured, it's all fair ....
GK: Yes, all fair. If you want to take yourself out of that scenario and put the
civilian population at risk because you are conducting your . .. Well , it says it
here - you don't get those privileges .....
MPZ: But what do you get though?
GK: What you get is your humane treatment . And I'll quote again, "Each case
shall neverthel ess be treated with humanity. And it goes onto some other
things, and that is the bottom line. They don't get al the privileges, but they
do get humanity.
RA I've just got one question relating to that and that relates to - you're quite
correct, it says that they won't be able to get to have those privileges - what if
I put to you that those rights and privileges that they don't receive are only
those that would be prejudicial to the State. In other words, if you had a
guerilla fighter and he is captured or a saboteur or whatever - obviously the
right of communication is going to be prejudicial (0 the security of the State.
He can communicate to his home country or his own force. But does that
mean that you don't get the other protections that are in Geneva IV such as,
apart from being humanely treated, no physical or moral coercion, no physical
suffering, no corporal punishment, no imprisonment without daylight - does
that mean that they fall by the wayside?
GK: Well that's where the argument stands. Is it prejudicial to the security of the
State to ... and that's the crux of the whole matter.
RA So when you say prejudicial to the security of the State, what does that mean?
GK: That means violence being committed against the forces that are there to try
and maintain law and order and the civilian population. These people are
involved in ..... as we're speaking they're killing and blowing up people that ...
RA: But my comment is, that the act's prejudicial. You see it's engaged in
activit ies hostile to the security of the State. But you don't get the rights and
privileges which is exercised by that person in custody, those privileges would
be prejudicial to the security of the State.
(Practice Alarm sounding in R 1)
GK: It comes down to, if you're interrogating that person to get that
information .....
MPZ: I' ve got to go down to see the Secretary before they start closing the doors.
We have an exemption from this alarm, but they' re going to close the doors on
me. I'll be interested in hearing the outcome of this. Now I'll see you again,
but probably not today I'd say.
GK: OK.
---------- . -.-.----.--------- . ---------1
I
I
22
/
',i,'
} .)
/
, /
,
\ \
,,'
i
\
'\
RA: 1'00\"1 we'll deal with the reporting back,
26
n A
f\.I"1.
ClK:
Do you have anything else you would like to say. Like the other ciay you said
there were a few things you would have liked to have said. Is there anything
clse that you want to say.
:\0. I ihink I have emphasised specifically in the Geneva Convention the
cJistinction bCl\Veen II and IV. We\/e discussed at length the derogation in
Article V. And we've discussed at length with Mikc the slippery beast of
interrogation and humane lTeatment. Clearly again J \vant to once again
emphasise _. it's 110 longer theoretical out there about how far you can go,
because people are being severely \vol.1l1ded
l
amputation injuries and killed.
\!ot on an hourly basis but certainly there arc 20,3(\ 50 attacks a clay. It :cClilv
is not an academic exercise, but a life and death issue
l-z_i',-: j dm/t h3ve z:nyt}Jing further. Do vuu
!\1 P:
I<l< Thanks Cieorge,
GI<: Thanks Sir.
R_A: lntervic.w concluded at 11.58.
L'I'COL Roy Abbott
MS Mignon Patterson
12 .Iun 04