A leading human rights group said yesterday that the CIA's method of interrogating al Qaeda detainees could constitute torture and result in the prosecution of U.S. officials by courts around the world.

Human Rights Watch, based in New York, sent a letter to President Bush calling for an investigation of the "stress and duress" techniques allegedly used by the CIA on some captives at the U.S.-held Bagram air base in Afghanistan and other facilities overseas.

Those techniques, described in a front-page article in Thursday's Washington Post, include keeping prisoners "standing or kneeling for hours" while hooded or wearing spray-painted goggles, holding them in "awkward, painful positions" and depriving them of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights.

We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.

US official directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands

In the letter to Bush, Human Rights Watch's executive director, Kenneth Roth, said those methods "would place the United States in violation of some of the most fundamental prohibitions of international human rights law."

The letter warned that torture and other "grave breaches" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions "are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that they can be prosecuted in any national criminal court."

Human Rights Watch also objected to the alleged U.S. practice of turning over some captives for interrogation by countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Morocco, which have been criticized by the State Department for using torture.

"It is a violation of international law not only to use torture directly, but also to be complicit in torture committed by other governments," the letter said. It called on Bush to issue a statement clarifying that U.S. policy does not condone torture, to take immediate steps to stop such acts, and to prosecute the individuals who ordered and carried them out.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that "we are not aware we have received the letter." He added, however, that "we believe we are in full compliance with domestic and international law, including domestic and international law dealing with torture." Wherever U.S. forces are holding combatants, they are being held "humanely, in a manner consistent with the third Geneva Convention," McClellan said.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of law at Yale University, said it is debatable whether the CIA techniques constitute torture under the U.N.'s definition, which is the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering" to obtain information.

Wedgwood she was "somewhat skeptical" of the description of what goes on at Bagram air base. "The guys like to talk tough, so you have to be careful that this is not professional swagger," she said.

Moreover, she said, some of the alleged conditions, such as lights burning 24 hours a day, are typical of civilian jails. As for holding prisoners in "awkward, painful positions," she said, it depends on exactly what that means. "If it's hanging someone from their wrists, absolutely not -- that's prohibited," she said. "But if it's keeping someone in handcuffs or temporarily hooded during transport, maybe yes -- as a legal matter, there could be legitimate reasons for that."

But Diane F. Orentlicher, a professor of international law at American University, said she believes the CIA techniques are a clear violation of international law. She noted that the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 1978 that the use by British forces in North Ireland of five similar techniques -- hooding, forced standing, deprivation of sleep, subjection to noise and deprivation of food and drink -- were not torture.

But, Orentlicher said, the European court found that such methods were "inhuman and degrading," and therefore illegal under various treaties. "One way or the other, it's clearly prohibited," she said.

Staff writer Dana Milbank in Waco, Tex., contributed to this report.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

###