Human Rights First - Home Page US Law & Security US Law & Security
Law & Security



Related Links
HRF Report: 27 Homicides of Prisoners in U.S. Custody; 7 Tortured to Death

Torture on Trial - HRF Observes Court Martial of Army Officer Accused in Death of Iraqi Major General

Major General Abed Hamed MowhoushHuman Rights First will observe the Fort Carson, Colorado, trial of Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, charged with the murder of Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died after being forced inside a sleeping bag during interrogation.

Marc Kusnetz is a consultant to Human Rights First and a freelance journalist. He was a producer at NBC News for twenty-six years.

David Danzig is the manager of Human Rights First's "End Torture Now" campaign.


January 13, 2006 - Preview
January 17, 2006 - Day One
January 18, 2006 - Day Two
January 19, 2006 - In Their Own Words
January 19, 2006 - Day Three
January 20, 2006 - Day Four
> January 20, 2006 - Welshofer In His Own Words
January 24, 2006 - Case Closed?

Welshofer In His Own Words

January 20, 2006

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer took the stand Thursday in his own defense. He testified for more than three hours. Below are excerpts from my notes on his testimony. I took my notes long hand and believe them to be an accurate reflection of what was said but they should not be thought to be a complete transcript of the proceedings.

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer on his training

Welshofer began his testimony by telling the Court about his training, which included a basic training and a specialized 12-week course on interrogation. Welshofer also served as a trainer at a SERE school in Hawaii where U.S. service members are trained on what they might face if there were to fall into enemy hands. The Defense Counsel referred to his regular training as “the schoolhouse” and the SERE experiences as “what you learned in Hawaii.”:

Defense Attorney: Before you deployed to Iraq, were you given any specific training on the environment you would find in Iraq?
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: How well did the schoolhouse prepare you for Iraq?
Welshofer: It didn’t prepare us well at all.
Defense: What did it prepare you for?
Welshofer: The cold war. It was a doctrine prepared 60 years ago.
Defense: Were you given any training specifically for the challenges you would face when capturing an individual in South Eastern Asia.
Welshofer: No sir, not at all.
Defense: Did they teach you scenarios in the schoolhouse that was anything like what you saw [in Iraq]?
Welshofer: No sir, absolutely not.

On August 30, Chief Welshofer received a memo from Captain Ponce, described during prior testimony as detailed to unnamed senior commanders in Iraq. This email was admitted into evidence and the 6-officer jury pool will have a chance to review it. The defense attorney asked Chief Welshofer to describe what was in the memo.

Welshofer: Basically it said that as far as they [unspecified, but likely a reference to senior commanders] knew there were no ROE [Rules of Engagement] for interrogations. They were still struggling with the definition for a detainee. It also said that commanders were tired of us taking casualties and they [told interrogators they] wanted the gloves to come off….It also was asking interrogators for an interrogation techniques wish list. They recognized that what we practiced in the schoolhouse was not working. They were looking for ideas outside the box.
Defense: Did it authorize new techniques?
Welshofer: All it asked for was a wish list. It did not provide guidance on what we were allowed to do.
Defense: Did you receive any more guidance on the status of detainees?
Welshofer: Other than a memo saying that they were to be considered “unprivileged combatants” we received no guidance from them.

Defense Attorney Frank Spinner asked about a series of three memos containing authorized interrogation techniques for use in Iraq. All were written under the name of General Ricardo Sanchez, the highest-ranking military official in Iraq at the time. The first of these is dated September 10, 2003, the second is dated September 14, 2003, and the last is dated October 12, 2003. According to other witnesses, the October 12, 2003 memo limited the use of interrogation techniques that had been authorized in the September memos:

Defense: What did the 10 September memo do?
Welshofer: The 10 September memo took a fairly large step forward in the approaches and techniques we were allowed to use. The memo added four or five more interrogation techniques.
Defense: The 10 September 2003 memo, is that the first guidance you received?
Welshofer: That is the only guidance I ever received in theater.
Defense: Up until November 26, 2003 [the date of General Mowhoush’s death] did you see the memorandum [dated September 14, 2004]?
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: When is the first time you saw the other memos?
Welshofer: The first time I saw them was when I returned from Iraq.
Defense: The government is saying that the Sept 10 memo is superceded by the October memorandum. While you were deployed in Iraq, did you see the October memorandum.
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: Prior to November 26, 2003 did you receive any written guidance on interrogation techniques other than the September 10, 2003 memorandum.
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: What did the September 10, 2003 memo say about stress positions?
Welshofer: According to the memo, stress positions are authorized sir.
Defense: How were stress positions defined in the school house?
Welshofer: They were not defined in the school house, sir.
Defense: Do you know where the term comes from?
Welshohfer: No sir.
Defense: When the term came down in the 10 September memo, outside the descriptive terms that came in the memo, where would you go to look to find out more about stress positions?
Welshofer: I wouldn’t know where to look sir.
Defense: Who did you run this by before employing the sleeping bag technique?
Welshofer: We presented it to the Company Commander, Major Voss, as an acceptable form of interrogation and she concurred.

Welshofer Testimony on Interrogating General Mowhoush

Welshofer described his second interrogation of Mowhoush, on November 17, 2003:

Welshofer: I spent the first hour or so just asking him questions. I was not getting anywhere with him. So I put him on his knees – an authorized stress position and I slapped him… The General bowed his head. The other detainees had gathered by the concertina wire that afforded them a view into the interrogation room. They all bowed their heads without exception when they saw this. I had been asking him if he was a part of the regime…The bowing of his head indicated to me that he recognized his involvement [in the insurgency] and the bowing of the other detainees heads indicated to me that they recognized his involvement as well.
Welshofer testified that soon after he began interrogating the General on November 24, 2003, another group of individuals – many of whom were not U.S. troops – arrived and asserted control over the interrogation. Other witnesses contend that Chief Welshofer was still in charge. According to Welshofer, the other individuals included an Iraqi who recognized the General, and whom the General recognized. Welshofer testified that “a melee” broke out:
Defense: What did they use to beat him?
Welshofer: There was something like a radiator hose, only a little softer. But like that. Also they had a hollow piece of what looked like insulation…inside it was a stick…they used these to strike the General. There were some kicks and some slaps. I don’t recall any fists being thrown.
On November 25, Welshofer once again interrogated the General. This time the interrogation took place on the roof of the detention facility. Welshofer testified to the techniques he used, including:
Defense: You also poured water on the General, what technique was that?
Welshofer: Fear up harsh.
Defense: Was that a technique, they taught at the schoolhouse?
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: Why did you think you could use it?
Welshofer: It’s a technique we used in [a SERE course in] Hawaii.
Defense: Describe it.
Welshofer: We laid the General on his back and I poured bits of water on him intermittently.
Defense: Where?
Welshofer: On his face.
Defense: Was he able to move?
Welshofer: Yes sir, he was able to move his face from side to side.
On the evening of the 25th of November, Chief Welshofer arranged for a short meeting between the General and his youngest son:
Defense: Why did you do this?
Weslhohfer: We were using the love of family technique. I think it may be called emotion – but love of family is a technique. I thought it might compel the General to cooperate with us.
Defense: Do you recall the General’s physical reaction upon seeing his son?
Welshofer: He was very excited. Moved to tears.
Welshofer said he began direct questioning on the morning of November 26:
Welshofer: I was asking him where is Saddam? His answers were in complete sentences. He would say “he may be in Syria. He may be in Jordan. He may be in Russia.” I really had run out of approaches…We were not getting anywhere…
Welshofer testified that, on November 26, he “did not recall” a moment when the General became unresponsive. He also testified that he did not remember expressing relief, or saying anything to the effect that he was worried the General had stopped breathing:
Defense: Why did you place your right hand over his mouth [while the General was in the sleeping bag]?
Welshofer: I have a rule with detainees. I forbid them to use the word “wallah.” You know, “I shot the RPG, Wallah.” In this case I had to enforce the rule… I covered the mouth three, maybe, five, maybe 10 seconds… It was like enough with the Wallah…
Defense: At any time did you do anything to impair the General’s breathing.
Welshofer: No sir.
Defense: Is there anything you may have done that may have impaired the Generals breathing whether you intended to or not?
Welshofer: No sir.
During cross examination, the prosecutor aggressively challenged Welshofer, stating at one point that “denying a person their ability to breath is the ultimate form of control.” He also asked about the word “Wallah”:
Prosecutor: What is wrong with saying Wallah?
Welshofer: In Hawaii, you try to identify something to throw them out of their comfort zone. You identify something and take it away.
Prosecutor: You took away his god?
Welshofer: Bascially, yes I took away his Wallah.
Prosecutor: And what does that mean?
Welshofer: It’s like we say “I swear to God.”
Prosecutor: You took away his god?
Welshofer: I took away one of his comfort items.

—David Danzig


Law and Security | End Torture Now | Refugee Protection | Human Rights Defenders | Human Rights Issues | Crimes Against Humanity | Media Room | About Us | Contribute | Jobs | Contact Us | Publications | Search | Site Map | Home 

Privacy Policy