The US & Interrogation (catch all)

[Jedburgh]

Besides the problems caused by having to reveal intelligences sources and methods, the lawfare approach has another problem. It leaves us on the strategic defensive, mainly reacting to attacks rather than taking the battle to the enemy and disrupting his plans.

If we can't convict a bad guy without supposedly compromising a significant source, we obviously ain't got that much on him. Translation: somebody isn't doing a very good job. Look at the record of domestic terror-related cases that have been dismissed for lack of evidence in the past year. There is an issue that needs to be fixed there, but it has more to do with building competencies than with changing the rules.

Your disparaging comment about adhering to the rule of law putting us on the "strategic defensive" is utterly false. We have made a lot of progress in advancing beyond the traditional LE post-incident investigative approach towards leveraging inter-agency intelligence fusion in support of both LE and SOF ops disrupting the bad guys before they can act. There have been many unheralded successes over the past few years, although we still have a long way to go - especially domestically.

I would take a more passive aggressive approach to dealing with that problem. The unlawful enemy combatants would be told that they will be held until the ened of the conflict like any other detainee in a war. If that results in an effective life sentence so be it.

I believe that by treating them as captives in a war, we unjustifiably elevate their status. Treat them as common criminals - with due procedure and appropriate sentencing.

As for the issue over interrigation techniques, it is clear to me that the President's approach will be more effective at preventing future attacks and that the PR advantages of the alternative approach do not offset the risks of not preventing further acts of mass murder. Supporters of the alternative approach are asking the US to risk paying a high price for some minimal PR brownie points with people who are at best, indifferent to our national security.

...and your experience with interrogation is...?

[Merv Benson]

Most of my experience in interrigation has been in depositions where the person being questioned has more to lose in being caught in a lie as he does in telling the truth. I think the opposite is the case when questioning terrorist.

And your experience in prosecuting cases?,,,

[SWJED]

Let's stay on subject. I intentionally provoked a debate because that is what we do here.

I see good points on both sides of this issue. Moreover, each are seeking the same conclusion (successful prosecution of the GWOT) and may not be as far apart as the previous posts might indicate.

No one here is saying to throw out the Geneva Conventions - though some are distrustful as to how they might be interpreted when faced with terrorist prisoners on an asymmetric battlefield.

As far as personal experience and how it might relate to future Small Wars scenario I'll offer this up.

My personal history with interrogations (proper) is limited - cursory training in the Army’s CI/HUMINT course, OJT at a USMC training prisoner of war camp, and OJT at three SOF Robin Sages.

As a Division G-2 OPSO during Desert Storm I also visited our EPW Collection Point to sit in on some interrogations. My CI Team also provided some, though limited, classroom instruction from time to time. I also read the Army’s FM.

What I learned from all that, prior to having to do “real world” field interrogations, is that there is a certain personality trait that makes a good interrogator – something innate that no amount of training or experience can substitute for. First and foremost, we must ensure we have the “right people” selected, trained and deployed as interrogators. We also must insure that when an interrogator is not available in the field and there is a time-critical requirement for info / intel we have the same type of “right people” conducting these ad hoc interrogations.

So, now it is 1991 and on G + 1 in the middle of the burning Al Burqan oil field and just after our DIV FWD CP had almost been overrun I get word that we have captured an Iraqi BDE commander. It was my responsibility to interrogate him as it was a fluid sit and there was no time to send him back and wait. Earlier I had conducted several field interrogations of other prisoners – but they had nothing of value to offer.

My only two worries at this point were Iraqi use of chemicals and any potential for another counterattack prior to our seizure of Kuwait International Airport. Bottom line – my previous training, PME and experiences made me comfortable that I had many “legal” options in interrogating this commander. I opted on ‘ego-up’ – gave the colonel a smart salute when I met him and he proceeded to spill his guts – no chemical attacks – not worth the risk – no more counterattacks as they shot their wad earlier – and on a map the entire Iraqi army disposition (though dated by a day or two due to our offensive) - an OOB that very closely mirrored our enemy sit overlay in the 2-shop.

Okay, what does all that have to do with this discussion? In 1991 I had many tried and true interrogation techniques available for my use and more importantly I had no worries about a possible UCMJ action against me should I utilize any of those techniques.

Now fast forward 15 years to 2006 to a hypothetical situation. Let's say I am back in SWA, but this time in support of a relief column that is slugging it out along an IED and ambush-laden LOC. A captured al-Qaeda (not Iraqi) terrorist with possible time-sensitive intel / info is captured and once again I am responsible for a field interrogation. “Ego-up” won’t provide jack. Probably the direct, incentive, emotional, etal approaches won’t either. Now I am faced with the gray area – as could very well be interpreted by those who take the Geneva Conventions to the extreme – can I or can I not use fear up without “my fear” of possible charges. Moreover, can I stray from the established interrogation techniques, short of torture, based on my judgment of the criticality of the information I may receive.

Don’t just dismiss those of us who question the Conventions – we do not fear them – we fear how they may be interpreted and the consequences.

[slapout9]

Dave, In Police world two concepts offer protection against just such a hypothetical situation you mentioned. One is exigent circumstances. A situation is so critical and the loss of life is so great that normal due process is suspended. No need for a warrant, no need for Miranda, no need for permission,etc. (physical torture is out).

The other is qualified immunity. A police officer can make the most drastic mistakes possible (killing an innocent person) if he shows he was acting in good faith. An example would be shooting an innocent person during a hostage rescue. Under qualified immunity he could NOT be prosecuted!!!

I think your issues would be better served by changing the UCMJ to allow for such situations as opposed to trying to change the Geneva Convention.

My experience with interrogating POW"s none, zero.

My experience with interrogating and prosecuting every low life,robbing,rapping,stealing,murdering,drug dealing,dope smoking son of a bitch out there, more than I like to remember.

[selil]

I won't make a mistake on thinking law enforcement and military circumstances are the same, but the UCMJ should provide protections as much as punishments.

I can perceive points in a militiary campaign where summary execution could be used (never leave an enemy at your back?). Any lesser asault against a human is just quibbling with degrees of abuse.

Civilized-War is an oxymoron, and to many people worry about perceptions of comabt. Deal with the enemy with honor and good judgement whether they would with you or not. Terms like terrorist, infidel, revolutionary, etc.. are the talismans of politicians and soldier should define the enemy in the terms of their mission orders.

Just some late Saturday night thoughts.

[SWJED]

17 September Voice of America - Bush Defends Push to Clarify Geneva Convention by Scott Stearns (reposted in full per USG terms of use).

President Bush says Congress must act to save a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogation program that he says has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including planned strikes inside the United States and on a U.S. Marine base in East Africa, an American consulate in Pakistan, and Britain's Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Bush says the previously-secret program is in jeopardy because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that military commissions the president wants to use to put suspected terrorists on trial must be authorized by Congress.

So the president is pushing legislation to allow classified evidence to be withheld from defendants during their trials. He wants coerced testimony to be allowed as evidence, and he wants U.S. interrogators to be protected from prosecution for using methods that might violate the Geneva Conventions.

But some senior Republican senators disagree. They say those rules do not meet constitutional standards outlined by the Supreme Court and could endanger U.S. troops overseas if other countries choose to reinterpret the Geneva Convention in their own way.

In his weekly radio address, President Bush said legislation approved by the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee this past week would force the CIA program to close because it does not protect U.S. interrogators from possible prosecution for violating international treaty obligations.

"There is debate about the specific proposals in this bill, and my Administration will work with Congress to find common ground," said Mr. Bush. "I have one test for this legislation: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue."

Republican senators opposed to the president's plan, led by former prisoner of war John McCain, have been joined by former Secretary of State Colin Powell who this past week wrote that the president's actions would encourage the world to doubt the moral basis of America's fight against terrorism.

[Jedburgh]

I think I've already gone over all I'm willing to discuss on an open board in this previous thread:

A Lesson About Torture, Half Century On

However, if anyone wishes to discuss interrogation methodology, issues and problems, please contact me off-line.