One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

[Jedburgh]

....the Army has separated Strategic Debriefers from Interrogators---but in fact both functions share a common goal that both Ft. H and TRADOC are overlooking---the person being questioned during Stategic Debriefing based on law and Intelligence Oversight DOES not have to answer a single question whereas in Interrogation the interrogator is trying to get the detainee to answer questions and maybe from a person who simply does not want to talk to you.

The "common goal" is simply obtaining intelligence information through human communications.

Strategic debriefing and interrogation are separated for very logical reasons, one simply being that roughly 80% or more of those who are trained as interrogators will never hold a strategic debriefing position during their military careers. And many of those who attend the DoD Strategic Debriefing course are not trained as interrogators (When I attended - in the days before computers - more than half the class was not interrogation trained). And (as I have stated before) although the skill sets are very similar the context of the conduct of interrogation vs strat debrief is very different. I know of outstanding interrogators who make great strat debriefers - but also of those who excel at extracting info from detainees yet who are lousy with willing strategic sources. The opposite is also true - in fact, more often than the former. I know of many highly successful strat debriefers who've spent a majority of their career in the strat debrief world who were later forced by DA into a tactical interrogation assignment as a senior NCO/Warrant who then failed miserably because they could not adapt.

When I became a "questioner" in 1973--in those days no one really had a name for what we were doing.....

Sorry, both Strategic Debriefing (ASI) and Interrogation (MOS) have been around since long before '73. And 96Cs - the old interrogator MOS code - were also doing strategic debriefings before then.

Also, in your first post you spoke of the developer of "spiral questioning" in the third person, as if it were someone else....

The creator discovered the technique years ago....

....but now you are stating that it is your creation.

I had a number of years later the opportunity to attend the German CI/MI School for interrogation at Bad Ems, Germany where I totally surprised senior (COL ranks) German military instructors with the technique and their feedback pushed me to continiously refine the method.

And this is nothing new or revolutionary:

A simple explanation of the method is as follows;
You set up a number of areas to be covered-pick a point to start and you ask a very simple question on that topic until you have worked your way through the topics--but the question has to be extremely straight forward and simple, then you sart a second round of questioning starting from a different point and you repeat the original question and add more depth to the first question---absolutely no follow up questions which is a urge hard to resist. Once that series is finished you start again at another point and expand on the first part of the questioning....

So, I have to ask - what is your point?

And to bring up the subject of statement analysis:

....before I was stopped from further NTC training.

You could tell us more about that....