Jedburgh on Interrogation
Hi Ted and all,
In going back to the start of this thread, I came upon this suggestion:
Quote:
from Jedburgh
Wonder how much they paid those "experts"? All they needed to do was ask a few old, experienced HUMINT NCOs. The best advice in the world, for free. Read my posts on interrogation.
Not being one to lightly disregard your advice (:D), here are the threads I found (using Advanced Search on interrogation and Jedburgh as poster):
A Lesson About Torture, Half Century On
Profusion of Rebel Groups Helps Them Survive
Terrorism in Indonesia
U.S. Army Adds Interrogators
Republican Revolt over interrogation techniques?
It's the Tribes, Stupid
Battlefield Ethics
It's Our Cage, Too - links to three threads on torture and interrogation in this post.
Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation - this thread
Extraordinary Rendition
HUMINT-Centric Ops
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
Semantic Search Engine as a model for Intel Analysis tool
Rendition in the Southern Cone: Operation Condor
"Face" among the Arabs
Iran in the News
Stalin World?
Gitmo and the lawyers!
Revising FM 3-24: What needs to change?
Screening for Interrogation
Hamas in Gaza
Iran and Iraq
35M school, Camp Williams UT
Interrogation in Afghanistan
Not to turn this into a Jedburgh Appreciation Page (;)), but the above threads contain multiple good links and comments by Ted and others.
------------------------------
Different topic
Quote:
From Jedburgh
What we do is either interrogation or torture.
I'd suggest there is a spectrum: non-coercive interrogation > coercive interrogation > torture. The test for "coercion" is based on the totality of circumstances measured in the specific context of the interrogation. Yes, there may be artificial legalisms (e.g., Miranda warnings) which disregard the totality of circumstances.
The three basic contexts for interrogations are:
1. Military and intelligence community interrogations
2. Law enforcement interrogations
3. Civil litigation and investigative interrogations (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office).
Different purposes and rules for each context, although all involve a search for reliable information (data) and then analysing that to generate an intelligent output.
Regards
Mike
Methinks there is more violent agreement here ...
than disagreement. E.g.,
Quote:
From my perspective, the difference between interview and interrogation is simply the adversarial context of the communication. In an interview, the subject is cooperative. Now that doesn't mean he tells the whole truth, but he is willing to engage in the communication and his general intent is to cooperate. In an interrogation, the source is uncooperative, at least in the initial stages, and he is often in custody or otherwise required to engage in the communication whether he wants to or not.
I definitely focus on the adversarial vs non-adversarial; and the cooperative and non-coperative. I've no problem if you want to distinguish between interviews (non-adversarial and cooperative) and interrogations (adversarial and non-cooperative) as working definitions. But, I try to turn "interrogations" into "interviews".
E.g., a deposition of an adverse witness. I want that guy or gal to talk and talk lots - and people usually do want to prove their case. In the process they disclose seams and gaps. Essentially, it's a question of who can last longer, the witness or me. Of course the idea is to tie down the seams and gaps so they can't be covered - and can be exploited later.
Also agreed that situations do call for different TTPs:
Quote:
Well, personally I look at interrogation-interview-negotiation as distinct methods used in very different contextual settings, not as styles. The skills certainly overlap a great deal, but the manner and purpose of interaction is quite different for each.
but personality is fairly constant. A "bulldozer" is going to be that in interrogation-interview-negotiation situations. So, "style" is really the interviewer's personality.
Also agreed that your world is different from my world (and both from Slap's). That's what I meant by this (using "interrogations" very broadly):
Quote:
The three basic contexts for interrogations are:
1. Military and intelligence community interrogations
2. Law enforcement interrogations
3. Civil litigation and investigative interrogations (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office).
Different purposes and rules for each context, although all involve a search for reliable information (data) and then analysing that to generate an intelligent output.
Regards
Mike