◆ SpookStack

“RR ow To: countertertohedn From: ‘Inspection OO. Re: 297-HQ-13276669-A, 09/23/2004 "You have been tdentified as having conducted an assignment at GIMO, Cuba since 09/11/2001. The Inspection Division has been tasked with contacting those employees who have served in any capacity at GTMO and obtain information regarding the treatment of detainees. Employees should immediately respond to the following: _ a 1) Employees who observed aggressive treatment, interrogations or interview techniques on GTMO detainees which was not consistent with Bureau interview policy/guidelines, should respond via email for the purpose of a followup interview. 2} Employees who served at GTMO. and observed no- aggressive treatment of detainees, should respond via an.EC documenting a negative response. The EC should include the employees official Bureau name, title,.and tenure of assignment at GTMO. . The EC should be titled "GIMO, Counterterrorism Division, Inspection Special Inquiry”, file number 297-HQ- 1327669-A. The EC should not be uploaded, but only serialized, with a hard copy." 5 CTD provided a list containing the identity | of all Bureau personnel and it was determined 493 had served in some capacity. This List was utilized for the forwarding of the above described email. INSD received 434 responses from Bureau personnel. Some non-responders included contractors no longer employed by the FRI and employees whe had since retired. INSD received 26 positive responses from Bureau personnel. The majority of these employees did not .have knowledge of what the "approved" interview/interrogation guidelines were, but wanted to ensure INSD was aware of a possible incident of mistreatment. .It should be noted that the 26 employees who responded did not observe any mistreatment of detainees by FBI personnel. Any mistreatment observed or rumored to have occurred, was allegedly conducted by employees of outside organizations. These 26 employees were reguested to provide a brief synopsis of what they observed in order that OGC could make a determination of whether a follow-up interview would be required. The synopsis provided by each personnel is attached to their enclosed FD- ~-302 in this. communication. The synopsis of each of the 26 incidents was provided to OGC: for review. Subsequent to the review, OGC determined that nine of the employees would be required to.be interviewed. _ ‘The personnel are identified as follows: RESPONSES-4