Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

Thread: One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Ted,

    Since Outlaw 7 may or may not be any longer with us, what are your views re: Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, MAJ Moran's theories on "interviewing" Japanese prisoners, and my own take in this thread on the subject matter in Comments on methodology.

    I'll omit the number of parties and witnesses that I've "interrogated", "interviewed" or "communicated with" (to say zip on lawyers - it also works there, direct communications with the officer making the calls on the other side - think about it ), lest I become a "moke".

    Cheers

    Mike

  2. #62
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    I just want to hear exactly what Spiral Questioning is?

  3. #63
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    What are your views re: Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, MAJ Moran's theories on "interviewing" Japanese prisoners, and my own take in this thread on the subject matter in Comments on methodology.
    Mike, I’ll just comment on Major Moran’s memo, because I’m not familiar with Chip Morgan and I haven’t had the time to read the linked text of his material.

    Major Moran’s memo, despite its age and brevity, remains a very insightful and useful read for those interested in interrogation methodology and techniques. The author focuses on two aspects of interrogation (although he never uses that term in the memo): the attitude of the interrogator towards the source, and the interrogator’s knowledge and use of language.

    As he states, the attitude of the interrogator is of primary importance and is critical to success or failure in the interrogation. The discussion of attitude in this memorandum is specifically focused on Japanese prisoners of war, but this is worth the time no matter what area of interrogation the reader may work or have an interest in. Considerations of environment, culture, physical condition of the source and the nature of the interrogator’s character as perceived by the source are critically important to any interrogation.

    Dividing and defining language used in the conduct of interrogation into “knowledge” and “use” is an important point for interrogators to consider, even when working in their native language, but obviously more so when working in a second language. Regarding “knowledge” of language, the author stresses the importance of idiomatic language, as opposed to technical vocabulary, for rapidly developing rapport and initiating conversation with the source. (Oreste Pinto is another WWII interrogator who has written useful material on the understanding of language in interrogation) As for “use” of language, the author discusses in a simple and general manner concepts of rapport, cognition, questioning methodology and leveraging aspects of culture in questioning. He also describes the difference between empathy and sympathy, and the dangers of the latter, although not in such precise terms.

    Mike, one comment you made about the article was that it illustrated that an interrogator could, ”…turn the "interrogation" (perceptionally adversarial) into an "interview" (perceptionally non-adversarial).” Your caveat about perception is astute – the interrogation remains adversarial in that we still need to extract information from the source that he is unwilling to share. However, developing rapport in such a way that it creates this type of source perception facilitates drawing out information from the source without his clear realization as to what he has just compromised.

    One book that myself and others on this board have previously mentioned as regarded by military interrogators as “the” classic in the field is The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. Although he does relate some coercive psychological methods – such as faking the execution of a prison during an interrogation of another – the majority of the content provides an outstanding illustration of the manipulation of source perceptions from adversarial toward non-adversarial communication for effective elicitation of intelligence information.

    Ted

  4. #64
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Ted,

    Thanks for the kind words - I like to be "astute", even though I am not always that.

    My impression of MAJ Moran's 8-pager is the same as yours. Your summary of "knowledge" and "use" hits it on the head:

    Dividing and defining language used in the conduct of interrogation into “knowledge” and “use” is an important point for interrogators to consider, even when working in their native language, but obviously more so when working in a second language. Regarding “knowledge” of language, the author stresses the importance of idiomatic language, as opposed to technical vocabulary, for rapidly developing rapport and initiating conversation with the source. (Oreste Pinto is another WWII interrogator who has written useful material on the understanding of language in interrogation) As for “use” of language, the author discusses in a simple and general manner concepts of rapport, cognition, questioning methodology and leveraging aspects of culture in questioning. He also describes the difference between empathy and sympathy, and the dangers of the latter, although not in such precise terms.
    In my world, your concepts run throughout client conferences (non-adversarial), witness interviews (which may be adversarial or not) and formal depositions (adversarial, if an adverse party or witness). I might sound very impressive in using "technical vocabulary" (whether legal or scientific), but I will miss the boat by doing that. The trick is to translate the technical vocabulary into idiomatic language.[*]

    My impression of Chip Morgan's manual is that it parallels MAJ Moran's memo in many respects (being non-adversarial in the interviewee's eyes; not being a bulldozer; empathy vs sympathy, etc.). It is more bullet-point than academic in style.

    Similar concepts also apply to witness preparation, direct examination and cross examination at trial; but they require other, overriding concepts as well. Each is a specialized area of practical trial work, but getting information from discovery and interviews underlies all of that.

    So, 95% of it is preparation and perspiration; only 5% is the flashy stuff at trial. And, if you follow the Columbo model (as I do), the trial stuff is not all that flashy.

    Regards

    Mike

    -------------------
    [*] Whatever the subject matter area, it is important for me to become something of a subject matter expert in that area - albeit with a limited focus. For example, if you have a forklift accident at a loading dock, you have to learn all you can about loading operations at that particular dock (and maybe some other docks as well).

  5. #65
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Excellent reference ...

    Hi Ted,

    The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe, is both a collection of war stories - and an educational manual underlying the war stories.

    It reminded me a bit of Francis L. Wellman's, The Art of Cross-Examination (from 1903, but still valid), since both emphasize brains over brawn with some humor interspersed (e.g., from Wellman):

    "The plaintiff, a laboring man, had been thrown to the street pavement from the platform of the car by the force of the collision, and had dislocated his shoulder. He had testified in his own behalf that he had been permanently injured in so far as he had not been able to follow his usual employment for the reason that he could not raise his arm above a point parallel with his shoulder. Upon examination ... I asked the witness a few sympathetic questions about his sufferings, and upon getting on a friendly basis with him suggested that he be good enough to show the jury the extreme limit to which he could raise his arm since the accident. The plaintiff slowly and with considerable difficulty raised his arm to the parallel of his shoulder. 'Now, using the same arm, show the jury how high you could get it up before the accident,' was the next quiet suggestion; whereupon the witness extended his arm to its full height above his head, amid peals of laughter from the court and jury."
    Thanks for the suggestion to read The Interrogator.

    Mike

  6. #66
    Council Member rborum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    73

    Default Intelligence Interviewing

    The Phase Two report from the Intelligence Science Board's Study on Intelligence Interviewing has been approved for release.

    It distills the current state of social/behavioral science thinking on key issues in the Intelligence Interviewing process, including:

    • Persuasion
    • Power
    • Interests & identities
    • Stress
    • Resistances
    • Memory


    It also includes a couple of detailed case studies with teaching notes.

    You can find a link to the report on the next post.

    - Randy Borum
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-27-2010 at 04:43 PM. Reason: Remove scribd link as against SWC policy
    Randy Borum
    Professor
    College of Behavioral & Community Sciences
    University of South Florida

    Bio and Articles on SelectedWorks

    Blog: Science of Global Security & Armed Conflict

    Twitter: @ArmedConflict

  7. #67
    Council Member rborum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    73

    Default Non-Scribd Link to the Intelligence Interviewing Report

    You can access the report HERE.

    Intelligence personnel who are trying to elicit information from a prisoner or a detainee can effectively do so in a non-coercive manner, according to the Intelligence Science Board (ISB), an official advisory group to the Director of National Intelligence.

    The United States and other democracies can benefit from exploring and learning more in the area of non-coercive intelligence interviewing
    The Board said in a sequel (pdf) to its December 2006 report on "Educing Information" (pdf). That earlier study found that existing U.S. intelligence interrogation practices were not scientifically well-founded.
    The study team could not discover an objective scientific basis for the techniques commonly used by U.S. interrogators.
    The newly disclosed follow-on report, dated April 2009,
    is written primarily for individuals concerned with 'high-value' detainees and those who focus mainly on strategic interrogation.
    It provides a survey of behavioral science perspectives on topics relevant to the interrogation process -- including persuasion, power, stress, resistance, and memory -- as well as two case studies of actual interrogations.

    A copy of the ISB report was obtained by Secrecy News. See "Intelligence Interviewing: Teaching Papers and Case Studies," A Report from the Study on Educing Information, Intelligence Science Board, April 2009 (211 pages).

    The ISB report adopted the new term "intelligence interviewing" instead of "interrogation" in part because it said "interrogation" is freighted with stereotypes often involving coercion. The report emphasized the utility of non-coercive interrogation but acknowledged the difficulty of empirically establishing its superiority to coercive questioning.

    During Phases I and II, contributors could find no studies that compare the results of 'coercive' interrogations with those of non-coercive intelligence interviews. It is also difficult to imagine how such studies might be conducted in a scientifically valid, let alone morally acceptable, manner.
    The ISB study notably dissected the "ticking time bomb" scenario that is often portrayed in television thrillers (and which has "captured the public imagination"). The authors patiently explained why that hypothetical scenario is not a sensible guide to interrogation policy or a justification for torture. Moral considerations aside, the ISB report said, coercive interrogation may produce unreliable results, foster increased resistance, and preclude the discovery of unsuspected intelligence information of value (pp. 40-42).

    There also are no guarantees that non-coercive intelligence interviewing will obtain the necessary information,
    the report said.
    However, the United States has important recent examples of effective, non-coercive intelligence interviewing with high value detainees.
    The ISB said its report could
    provide experienced and successful interviewers a more formal understanding of the approaches they may have used instinctively. It may also help them to communicate their expertise to their colleagues... This [report] is intended to foster thinking and discussion and to encourage knowledge-based teaching, research, and practice. It does not, and cannot, offer doctrine or prescriptions. It is a start, not an end.
    The mission of the Intelligence Science Board is
    to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-27-2010 at 04:47 PM. Reason: Update and use of quote marks
    Randy Borum
    Professor
    College of Behavioral & Community Sciences
    University of South Florida

    Bio and Articles on SelectedWorks

    Blog: Science of Global Security & Armed Conflict

    Twitter: @ArmedConflict

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Thanks for posting that, Randy.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  9. #69
    Council Member Tracker275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    51

    Default

    I read a lot of parts of the paper to first identify what the difference is between "coercive", and "non-coercive" interrogation techiniques. However, so far...I haven't been able to find in the paper where they clearly define what either means within the context of the paper in clear definition.

    It is important to note what they consider to be the definition of the two, and the differences. Since that seems to be one of the main themes of the document, it would be helpful to know what they consider each to be by their definition.

    ...Still looking for that.

  10. #70
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Seek and ye shall not find

    in the 25 instances of "coerc" in the April 2009 Report linked in this thread, or in the 147 instances of "coerc" found in the "prequel" December 2006 Educing Information Report (several threads have discussed it), a precise, overall definition of "coercive" interrogation techniques.

    The 2006 report discusses various "coercive" methods; and so, provides a better feel for that term than the 2009 report.

    That being said, the best definition (by examples) of "coercive" interrogation is found in the so-called KUBARK Interrogation Manual (ToC snip):

    IX. THE COERCIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION OF RESISTANT SOURCES 82-104

    A. Restrictions 82
    B. The Theory of Coercion 82-85
    C. Arrest 85-86
    D. Detention 86-87
    E. Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli 87-90
    F. Threats and Fear 90-92
    G. Debility 92-93
    H. Pain 93-95
    I. Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis 95-98
    J. Narcosis 98-100
    K. The Detection of Malingering 101-102
    L. Conclusion 103-104
    The 2009 report cites KUBARK nada; the 2006 report cites it 125 times and has a separate chapter devoted to it:

    5. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review:
    Observations of an Interrogator – Lessons Learned and Avenues for Further Research, Steven M. Kleinman, p. 95
    I'm positing you are looking for a legal-neutral definition of "coercive" and "non-coercive" interrogation - if so, look to KUBARK (snip from ch IX):

    L. Conclusion

    A brief summary of the foregoing may help to pull the major concepts of coercive interrogation together:

    1. The principal coercive techniques are arrest, detention, the deprivation of sensory stimuli, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, and drugs.

    2. If a coercive technique is to be used, or if two or more are to be employed jointly, they should be chosen for their effect upon the individual and carefully selected to match his personality.

    3. The usual effect of coercion is regression. The interrogatee's mature defenses crumbles as he becomes more childlike. During the process of regression the subject may experience feelings of guilt, and it is usually useful to intensify these.

    4. When regression has proceeded far enough so that the subject's desire to yield begins to overbalance his resistance, the interrogator should supply a face-saving rationalization. Like the coercive technique, the rationalization must be carefully chosen to fit the subject's personality.

    5. The pressures of duress should be slackened or lifted after compliance has been obtained, so that the interrogatee's voluntary cooperation will not be impeded.
    We could, of course, spend a lot of fruitless and useless bytes talking about the evidentiary admissibility of "coerced" statements, and various aspects of the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisoned tree rule. I don't feel like doing that right about now.

    Regards

    Mike

  11. #71
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default To be complete,

    my position on "Intelligence Interviewing" is pretty much carved in stone by these posts on the second page of Interrogation in Afghanistan:

    Comments on methodology (my major points)

    Hi Ted (requesting Jedburgh's opinion)

    Ted's Response - with a snip from his comments:

    Mike, one comment you made about the article was that it illustrated that an interrogator could, ”…turn the 'interrogation' (perceptionally adversarial) into an 'interview' (perceptionally non-adversarial).” Your caveat about perception is astute – the interrogation remains adversarial in that we still need to extract information from the source that he is unwilling to share. However, developing rapport in such a way that it creates this type of source perception facilitates drawing out information from the source without his clear realization as to what he has just compromised.

    One book that myself and others on this board have previously mentioned as regarded by military interrogators as “the” classic in the field is The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. Although he does relate some coercive psychological methods – such as faking the execution of a prison during an interrogation of another – the majority of the content provides an outstanding illustration of the manipulation of source perceptions from adversarial toward non-adversarial communication for effective elicitation of intelligence information.
    Hi Ted (#2 - violent agreement )

    Excellent reference (my thanks for the reference to the Scharff book - Scharff, a South African German, was a really amazing guy).

    So, BLUF (the "line up front" needed a brief intro): Jedburgh and I are kinda softies in this particular arena; i.e., we accept the "non-coercive" TT&Ps as a general rule.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 08-29-2010 at 05:21 AM.

  12. #72
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,074

    Default Motivational Interviewing

    Motivational Interviewing

    Entry Excerpt:

    Motivational Interviewing:
    Improving Combat Advising to Strengthen Partnering with Afghan National Security Forces
    by James Cowan, Nengyalai Amalyar and Mohammad Mustafa

    Download The Full Article: Motivational Interviewing

    Standing up a professional Afghan Na-tional Security Force (ANSF) is central to establishing a secure and more stable Afghan nation, and combat advising, as provided by US and coalition forces, is foundational to establishing a strong partnership with our ANSF brethren. Effective partnering, in turn, is critical to developing a capable and enduring ANSF. Given historical and evolving challenges and the contemporary importance of combat advising across US military operations, continuing efforts are necessary for further strengthening and preparing combat advisors to advise, coach, mentor, teach and partner with host nation security forces most recently in Afghanistan.



    --------
    Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
    This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

  13. #73
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,343

    Default 'National Security Interrogations: Myth and Reality'

    Been awhile since the thread has been updated, but when looking for something else I came across this paper 'National Security Interrogations: Myth and Reality' by Steven Kleinman:http://content.thirdway.org/publicat...v._Reality.pdf

    The Third Way labels itself as a 'moderate' "think tank" and appears to be Democratic Party dominated.
    davidbfpo

  14. #74
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,343

    Default Book review: The Interrogator: An Education

    Ali Soufan reviews “The Interrogator: An Education,” a new book by CIA veteran and former detainee interrogator Glenn Carle.
    It would be a struggle to find a CIA operative who endorses the use of enhanced-interrogation techniques. Carle’s experience and frustrations with the interrogation system bears out the fact that Anyone with actual interrogation experience knows that rapport-building techniques, which use knowledge to outwit detainees and gain cooperation, produce better intelligence than enhanced interrogation.
    Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
    davidbfpo

  15. #75
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,343

    Default The Interrogator: An Education - author interviewed

    Six questions posed and in the last states - on general national policy, not the art of interrogation:
    Frankly, I believe the main reason is that many people in the government have been sincere but deluded in their perceptions and actions in the “War on Terror.” I wrote my book because I was so distressed by so many aspects of the case: our erroneous and dangerous exaggeration of the terrorist threats facing us; what we have done to ourselves, our society, and our laws with our interrogation programs during the “War on Terror;” how our views about acceptable behavior have become coarser; our freedoms compromised unnecessarily; and how we unjustly kept a largely innocent man in prison for years, it seems, so as to bury in a dungeon the dark multiple, egregious errors.
    Link:http://harpers.org/archive/2011/07/hbc-90008139

    The second article is concerning with redactions made to the bbok at CIA insistence:http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/07/hbc-90008135
    davidbfpo

  16. #76
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,343

    Default The psychology of interviewing suspects

    A UK academic, a forensic psychologist, has written a short article, the full title being 'The psychology of interviewing suspects, from Woolwich to Boston'. It brings together a number of themes, with some links, so may help readers:http://theconversation.com/the-psych...o-boston-14827

    Given the practice in the UK of many terrorism suspects remaining silent throughout police custody it is a moot point whether better interviewing will help.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-01-2013 at 10:56 PM.
    davidbfpo

  17. #77
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Interviews vs Interrogations

    The basic dichotomy is between the Interview (get information) vs the Interrogation (get confession). The former more closely resembles direct witness examination; the latter more resembles cross examination.

    Starting with the basics,

    Interview Techniques (~30 min.)

    1997 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center gov.ntis.ava20440vnb1 VP-023-97 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center - This video depicts an effective law enforcement interview using the five general stages: Introduction, rapport, questioning, summary, and close.
    Since the UK author mentions it, let's look at the Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation (Wiki)

    Here's a sampling of Reid's four major points (about an hour total)

    My opinion is that the Reid methodology (as to verbal cues and body language) includes some witchcraft and alchemy; but that opinion may derive from having been a student of Yale Kamisar, and not of Fred Inbau and John Reid.

    Finally ...

    Don't Talk to Police (~50 min.)

    A law professor explains how talking with police can get you convicted of crimes you're completely innocent of. The professor gives a long-time police officer equal time to rebut. The officer not only agrees with the professor, but reveals a few "tricks of the trade" that officers use in interrogations to convict people whether they're guilty or not.
    A fun video - the lawyer missed his career opportunity as an auctioneer. The cop steals the show. BTW: The cop is an "interviewer", not an "interrogator".

    Regards

    Mike

  18. #78
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Reid Technique Is Getting Old

    Reid has been around a good while but some newer stuff is starting to filter into Police World.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnhph4d5frM

  19. #79
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default Douglas Starr on Reid and PEACE techniques.

    Douglas Starr, a faculty member in Boston University’s College of Communication, was interviewed on Fresh Air yesterday in conjunction with his New Yorker (behind a pay-wall) article he wrote titled “The Interview.” He was trained in both the Reid and PEACE techniques in the course of putting the piece together. Most surprising (and not in a good way) assertion he made in the course of the interview was that confession typically trumps physical evidence in the American justice system.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-06-2013 at 06:17 PM. Reason: Add NYorker behind paywall
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  20. #80
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,343

    Default 57yrs to get exonerated

    I note in The Fesh Air article linked that:
    This was an early case in 1955. [Darrel Parker], a forester in Lincoln, Neb., came home to find his wife had been brutally raped and murdered, and John Reid himself was called in to do the interrogation......Finally, in the summer of 2012, the state publicly admitted [Reid's] mistake and formally exonerated [Parker], who was now in his 80s, and he said, "At least now I can die in peace."
    I was trained in the PEACE model many years ago, as were and until a few years ago all operational police officers in my department. It is awhile since I used it in suspect interviews.

    The PEACE model IMHO works best with witnesses. It is not really suitable for suspects, even more so when they have a legal adviser present. There is a general right of silence in the UK, although legally qualified. Policing here has steadily been working towards taking any comments in interviews are a bonus - which can in low impact crimes mean no prosecution.
    davidbfpo

Similar Threads

  1. Africa's Commandos - new book on the RLI
    By davidbfpo in forum Historians
    Replies: 281
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 10:20 AM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 12:24 PM
  3. Interrogation in Afghanistan
    By dritalin in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-10-2010, 03:42 PM
  4. How To Stop IEDs
    By SteveMetz in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 10:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •