LETTER TO STEVE BRADBURY FROM (SANITIZED)

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: Documents Related to the Former Detention and Interrogation Program
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 6541714
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Release Date: June 13, 2016
• Case Number: F-2015-02400
• Publication Date: May 4, 2005

FAX COVER SHEE't
/Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
1.....C11L1 41 Liii.vingcsti:?u
Washington, DC 20505
4 May 2005
T I DOJ Command Center
[Foy SteNT
Organization: I Office of Legal Counsel
I U.S. Department of Justice
(b)(6)
???????11.11.?????????????????
Phone:
Fax:
From:
Organization:
Phone:
(b)(3) CIAAct
(b)(6)
....????????????
weneremotmrev?...-...
Legal Group
DCI Counterterrorist Center
Fax:
(b)(3) CIAAct
????????????1111.11*
Number of pages (including cover sheet):
Comments: (Umri-ove) Steve, Answers to your questions
faxed to me yesterday. (b)(3) IAAct
(b)(6)
TOTIO upon removal of attachment
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT
This information is properly ofthe United States intended solely for the use of the entity or person twined above and also may be atterneY-0110-111
7rivileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. lfyou are nor the intended recipient of this facsimile. or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby 'rolled that receipt of this message Li nor a waiver or release
)f any applicable privilege or exemption from disclosure, and that review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
lrohibitec4 lfyou have received this material in error, please non), this office at the above telephone number (collect) for instructions regarding its
Trurn or destruction. Thank you. (b)(1)
(b)(3) NatSecAct
TOP-SEGRET,
F65
NOPORN
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
'TO? SECRET/ (b)(1) NOPeRN/MR1
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
Central intelligence Agency
Washnton. D.C. 20505
Transmitted by Secure Facsimile
Steve Bradbury
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Justice
washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Bradbury:
(b)(1)
(b)(3) NatSecAct
4 May 2005
(Te/i /NF Please find below answers to the
questions you faxed to me yesterday. These answers were
composed by the CIA's Office of Medical Services (OMS) after
consideration of the medical journal articles you referenced.
I. Does OMS accept the findings of the studies that sleep
deprivation can lower the threshold of pain?
Answer: OMS believes the studies on sleep deprivation and
pain threshold remain inconsistent in their findings in healthy
subjects, even in the papers cited. Where differences in pain
threshold may have been demonstrated (i.e1 increased sensitivity
to heat, nonsignificant or no differences in cold,
nonsignificant changes in perception to pressure), they are not
germane to the techniques used in the interrogation program.
None of CIA's methods are designed to induce pain under any
'circumstances: to the extent that they might (i.e. faaial slap,
abdominal slap), they do not involve application of heat, cold,
pressure, any sharp objects (or indeed any objects at all).
2. If this lowering of the threshold can exist, has OMS
evaluated how the lowering would affect the use of other
interrogation technique?
Answer; See above, which informs below comments.
(b)(1)
(b)(3) NatSecAct
(b)(3) CIAAct
(b)(3) NatSecAct
(b)(6)
TOP?sseREPri,
-NOF-OPX/MR
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
-ircrp?tEciterr /1 \ NWPORWIMR1
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
ku)ko)
Steve Bradbury, Esq.
-- Stress positions, slaps, walling, cramped
confinement, and water dousing all might cause some pain'. How
would the lowered threshold change the effects of the 1
1
techniques? 1
Answer: We believe that because of fatigue (not increased
sensitivity to pain), sleep deprivation would reduce the ability
to maintain a stress position compared to normal subjects,
leading to sooner release from the position, not greater pain.
In other words, when the individual reaches his limit, the
technique ends, and we would expect him to reach that limit
sooner under conditions of sleep deprivation. We have no reason
to believe slaps are more painful, and no reason to believe,
based on CIA or SERE experience, that they would induce severe
or permanent injury. The same is true for walling. As for
cramped confinement, our limited experience indicates that
subjects use the opportunity to sleep, mitigating any concern
about pain. Finally, we are aware that the temperature-lowering
effect of sleep deprivation creates a potential increased risk
of hypothermia with water dousing compared to that in noi-mal
subjects (and thus monitor for that effect), but at the
temperatures of water we have recommended for the program the
likelihood of induction of pain by water dousing is very low
under any circumstances, and not a phenomenon we have seen in
detainees subject to this technique.
-- Standing sleep deprivation can lead to edema. With
a lowered threshold, would the edema become painful? Would
shackling become painful?
Answer: We have not observed this phenomenon in the
interrogations performed to date, and have no reason to believe
on theoretical grounds that edema or shackling would be more
painful, provided (a) shackles are maintained with appropriate
slack; and (b) interrogators follow medical officers'
recommendation to end standing sleep deprivation and use an
alternate technique when the medical officer judges that edema
is significant in any way. Detainees have not complained about
pain from edema, however, and we have no information to suggest
otherwise. .Further, OMS's experience is that medical officers'
recommendations are always followed; its relationship with the
interrogators,has been one of close and mutual collaboration on
all medical recommendations.
(b)(1) 2
(b)(3) NatSecAct
110P?SerellaTi
trOPORNI ibfal
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
(IDV11 11ePORNY/MR1
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
kialkvi I
Steve Bradbury, Esq.
(b)(5)
4. In the monitoring of detainees undergoing interrogation, is
it possible to tell reliably (e.g. from outward physical signs
like grimaces) whether a detainee is experiencing severe pain?
If so, how?
? Answer: As the memo and all supporting literature notes,
all pain is subjective, not objective. medical officers can
monitor for evidence of condition or injury that most people
would consider painful, and can observe the individual for
outward displays and expressions associated with the experience
of pain. Medical officer can and do ask the subject, after the
interrogation session has concluded, if he is in pain and have
and do provide analgesics, such as Tylenol and Aleve, to
detainees who report headache and other discomforts during their
interrogations. We reiterate, that an interrogation session
would be stopped if, in the judgment of the interrogators or
medical personnel, medical attention was required.
0:05)
3
(b)(1)
(b)(3) NatSecAct
TIMP?SEeiENT/
ifer004W/IFIR1
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
lu ? ' "k4.1C.C/
/111/11
DIQP0/01/ /14R1
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714
ildioeur?LA
Steve Bradbury, Esq.
-- If not, are there additional safeguards or limits that
might be appropriate?
Answer: It is OMS's view that based on our limited
experience and the extensive experience of the military with
these techniques, the program in place has effectively avoided
severe physical pain and suffering, and should continue to do
so. Application of the thirteen techniqUes has not to date
resulted in any severe or permanent physical injury (or any
injury other than transient bruising), and we do not expect this
to change.
Wipesc4 If you have any additional questions, please
give me a call.
P4oirgirws1xr
(b)(3) CIAAct
(b)(6)
Azsocia Genera oungel
? 4
(b)(1)
(b)(3) NatSecAct
TOP?enea-E-sti
ITCYMEN/11431
Approved for Release: 2016/06/10 C06541714