The US & Interrogation (catch all)

[Sargent]

I don't think it matters much how we treat prisoners -- our enemies will do what they do. And I will have to accept the words of people who do this stuff for a living and say that it doesn't work. But what is known for sure, and what I worry most about, are that there will be consequences for the people who will perform these techniques. There will be hundreds, if not thousands of them. Why would we put our own people through that brutality? It is difficult enough to learn to live with having killed someone in combat. But to live with having become a brutalizer? That will be a particular hell that will never leave them. And we will have done that to them ourselves.

Buckwheat referenced the 24 ticking bomb scenario. What I find particularly despicable is that the producers were asked by the command at West Point to tone down the torture, because it was having an effect on the cadets. They said no. Ugh.

[Jedburgh]

....But any of those old HUMINT NCOs who think they can beat answers from a prisoner apart from trying a Threat-Rescue technique are fooling themselves. The issue at question here isn't professional techniques ... none of this is professional. Its about conciously selecting activites that are truely coercive and damaging to the prisoner as well as to the interrogator for the fantasy of getting something good.

I hope you didn't misconstrue my first post in this thread to mean that I support the amateurish methods under criticism in the article. My meaning (and if you read my second post, it should be clear) is that old, experienced HUMINT NCOs have long been aware of the counterproductive nature of the methods that have been coming under fire - and they did not need a bunch of highly paid PhD consultants to tell them what truly works.

But I disagree with you in that I will argue that it is about professionalism. As I've stated before on SWC, resort to torture and questionable/borderline methods are an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator, and an indicator of failed leadership within his chain of command. Both of those most certainly reflect upon the professionalism - or lack thereof - of the servicemembers in question.

And there have most definitely been serious leadership failures at the highest levels - with senior military and civilian decision makers who understand absolutely nothing about interrogation approving such illegal and amateurish methods.

But I agree with you 100% as to the extent of the strategic damage that this had done to us, and its potential for continued impact well in the future. This is an ugly thing that should have been completely stopped a long time ago. Unfortunately, those reponsible are not the ones that will be paying the price.

[Abu Buckwheat]

But I disagree with you in that I will argue that it is about professionalism. As I've stated before on SWC, resort to torture and questionable/borderline methods are an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator, and an indicator of failed leadership within his chain of command. Both of those most certainly reflect upon the professionalism - or lack thereof - of the servicemembers in question.

And there have most definitely been serious leadership failures at the highest levels - with senior military and civilian decision makers who understand absolutely nothing about interrogation approving such illegal and amateurish methods.

Jedburgh, not only do I like your handle but I like the way you think. It appears I was arguing your point. Thanks for letting me clarify that you're right the old NCO's would know this and put professionalism ahead of any orders ... I second your excellent point about leadership.

[Armchairguy]

I've been watching a show on television called "Mind control" and it has a brit (Derren Brown) who is able to tell a great deal about people and whether they are lying simply by observing them and listening to them. Whatever he knows should be taught and learned by interogators. He is absolutely amazing and I believe he is legitimate as he tells you how to do some of what he does as well. Let's use psychology and science to get the best interogators and never torture anyone ever again.

[RTK]

I've been watching a show on television called "Mind control" and it has a brit (Derren Brown) who is able to tell a great deal about people and whether they are lying simply by observing them and listening to them. Whatever he knows should be taught and learned by interogators. He is absolutely amazing and I believe he is legitimate as he tells you how to do some of what he does as well. Let's use psychology and science to get the best interogators and never torture anyone ever again.

It's akin to the Reid Interview Technique, which I'm sure Slapout is familiar with.

Interogators know it too.

[Jedburgh]

I've been watching a show on television called "Mind control" and it has a brit (Derren Brown) who is able to tell a great deal about people and whether they are lying simply by observing them and listening to them. Whatever he knows should be taught and learned by interogators. He is absolutely amazing and I believe he is legitimate as he tells you how to do some of what he does as well. Let's use psychology and science to get the best interogators and never torture anyone ever again.

It's akin to the Reid Interview Technique, which I'm sure Slapout is familiar with.

Interogators know it too.

The Reid Technique, although it does have some kinesic and cognitive aspects, tends to focus (overmuch in my opinion) on the development of narrative themes designed to develop rapport with source and lead them into a confession. It is definitely oriented towards LE interrogations, but as I've mentioned before, its resemblance to a long, narrative version of a leading question is a serious weakness.

The Brit Joint Services Interrogation Course on the other hand, has long focused on the kinesic and cognitive aspects of interrogation - with a truly heavy emphasis on recognition of non-verbal indicators. This course has long been a staple of US military interrogators' advanced training opportunities. Both the short version that MTTs have provided here in the US and the full course in the UK.

Although the US Army AIT-level training in interrogation isn't quite as heavy on the kinesic as the Brits, it does focus heavily on the cognitive and psychological aspects of interrogation. However, that is just the beginning of any interrogator's training.

Armchairguy - your statement shows that you have very little understanding of how military interrogators conduct business, and assumes that they aren't doing things the right way. If nothing else, at least please read through the threads discussing interrogation on this board, and perhaps you'll gain a better understanding.

[slapout9]

Hi all, yes I am very familiar with the Reid technique. I also went back to school two years ago to learn the civilian version, which is different and a little softer but generally good stuff, easier to learn too. I also agree 1000% with Jed about theme development. Too much talking and not enough listening and LOOKING in my opinion.

I have never interviewed a POW so their could certainly by cultural differences that you would have to factor in. I had to learn this the hard way with Hispanic suspects, there are differences.


Before REID came along(yea I am Little older than most) the techniques I learned were close to what is in the Old Army FM that Jed has posted here. I use to use what they called the Absent Minded Professor.

Jed also has talked about the Harvard Negation project. I was pushing this back in the early 80's based solely upon reading the book and my experience. Never was able to get it accepted and never got to go to the school, but I would go in a heartbeat if I could or rather I would have.

Jed has also talked about the use of statement analysis. I would be all over that like stink on sh...... The basis that it is founded on is absolutely valid. I used to know a guy with the ABI Alabama Bureau of Investigations that did that and he helped informally and it was rather amazing.


General tips watch the movie "The House of Games" everybody has a "tell" learn what it is and you have got them.
Watch Poker Players!!!! and ask them how they new the other person was bluffing....they can be amazing.

And finally some of the best advice I ever got in order to learn about criminals and how to catch them.....Watch the animal Chanel!!! I kid you not they are just like them. I very much believe this would translate to COIN warfare but it is probably to fantastic for people to believe, but don't believe me try it out yourself especially anything about the predator type animals.

Thats about all folks. Any Questions I will try to help but I can already tell you Jedburgh has it down pat.

[carl]

I was an officer for a few years, (I have a fraction or Slapout's experience) and my interogation training consisted of what I learned in the academy, what other guys told me and a 3 day course given by an FBI agent from Washington. This seemed to be about the average amount of training in this subject patrol officers received at my agency.

The course given by the FBI agent I believe contained a lot of elements of the Reid Technique. It worked pretty well with people who had no experience talking to the police. The real hoods would request a lawyer first thing and that was that.

That is my worm's eye view.

[slapout9]

Hi Carl, how is everything over there? You bring up a very valid point which ties into learning negotiation techniques. When the scumbag asks for an attorney the whole process switches from an interrogation to a negotiation!!!

Which is why I think the Harvard project would be valuable. Further points. I used to negotiate with CI's (confidential informants) because I did not want a confession or a conviction I wanted INFORMATION. That I think is one of the big deferences between an LE interview/interrogation and an Intel Operator talking to POW,etc. he wants information not a confession and conviction and that process to me at least is better served in the framework of a negotiation proces. I can not speak for Jedburgh but I think this is a lot of what he is getting from some of his posts, at least that is my point of view.

Finally send some pictures man, if you can

[carl]

When the scumbag asks for an attorney the whole process switches from an interrogation to a negotiation!!!

In my agency, the suspect only had to whisper the word "lawyer" and we had to stop the interview immediately. It was frustrating until you accepted the fact that there wasn't anything to be done about it.

One unfortunate byproduct of that was everybody gave up any further attempts to interview. I don't remember anybody doing interviews with a lawyer present. Maybe it was a forlorn hope but I thought it couldn't hurt to try.

The old "If you give me something, I will talk to the DA." line worked real well sometimes, as you know.

I will send you an update and what photos I was able to take.

[slapout9]

Agency SOP's can be a problem. Within a 50 mile radius and depending on which department you have several different SOP's (Alabama) that would or would not allow you to do that or some modified version of it. Also depended upon if your were uniformed patrol officer or detective or task force,etc. Point is their is nothing illegal about it at all and it is done all the time, with and without lawyers present.

The REID organization developed a special program just for this situation called the field interview method. This is more patrol/state trooper oriented /drug interdiction operations and although I have not been to it alot of Trooper organizations use it, at least in the south. It has a lot more of the behavioral analysis in it, again this is second hand information.

I am straying from the point of this thread so I will shut up here with this final point. From my viewpoint the interviewing/interrogation of POW's etc. from and Intel point of view is more along the lines of a negotiation for information than a standard LE type interview. However working an informant for information seems to me to be almost the same, again when I was "working" my snitches and my bitches (hookers) I was after information so I could nail the suspect even if he did not confess in the interview. And I was willing to negotiate for that with my CI's. Trade Small fish for Big fish.

[Jedburgh]

.....From my viewpoint the interviewing/interrogation of POW's etc. from and Intel point of view is more along the lines of a negotiation for information than a standard LE type interview.....

I would argue that the statement interrogation is a negotiation for information is true with every type of interrogation, as it ties into the umbrella concept of manipulative human comms that I've mentioned on the board a few times. "Information", in my perception, includes both the self-incriminatory type of info required for a confession you can bring to court as well as the type of info described by the catch-phrase "actionable intelligence".

However, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the difference between a LE "interview" and your average military interrogation. The LE interrogator generally has to meet much stricter legal standards of conduct in obtaining the information in order to build a successful case. A study of precedent relating to Miranda and what is admissable and what ain't is very enlightening to the military interrogator. I'll try to throw up some links later, but I have certainly found methods described in case studies that have proven useful (when slightly modified) in both interrogations and in the conduct of source ops.

I really want to emphasize (again!) that manipulative human communications is a skill set that includes interrogation, interview, debriefing, elicitation, negotiation, and mediation. Any well-trained individual in any one of those areas, who truly understands the triad of cognition, kinesics and emotion, should, with enough experience in actual application, be able to operate effectively across the manipulative human comms continuum.

The key missing link for someone with those skills in the current operational environment is knowledge of language and culture. No matter what spin you put on it, using a terp in an interrogation is not even marginally as effective as employing a skilled interrogator who is fluent in the language. And even considering using a terp for source ops is just plain stupid. That is why whenever I am again reminded of DA's decision to "waive" the language requirement for HUMINT Collectors in order to get bodies into the field my head damn near explodes.

[Coldstreamer]

And even considering using a terp for source ops is just plain stupid. That is why whenever I am again reminded of DA's decision to "waive" the language requirement for HUMINT Collectors in order to get bodies into the field my head damn near explodes.

Bugger. Just as I was putting a plan together to use my 'Terps in producing actionable intelligence.

What's the fastest way to learn Dari in one month?

[Ken White]

That was the short answer; long one is to work at it 24 hours a day and bounce what you learn off at least three different and hopefully unconnected native speakers. Many folks are inclined to have at least a little fun with um, misleading terms, in teaching another their language. I learned more profanity unintentionally than purposely in a couple of languages...

[Armchairguy]

Stupid of me to assume that professionals would not be familiar with all techniques of interrogation. I'm guessing it is civilians (like myself) of equal ignorance advocating torture. I'll study up more before posting.

[Jedburgh]

And even considering using a terp for source ops is just plain stupid. That is why whenever I am again reminded of DA's decision to "waive" the language requirement for HUMINT Collectors in order to get bodies into the field my head damn near explodes.

Bugger. Just as I was putting a plan together to use my 'Terps in producing actionable intelligence....

Please don't misunderstand my comments to mean that I don't believe terps can be useful in an intelligence role.

As regards stupidity and using terps in source ops, or any form of collection, this is probably not the appropriate forum to discuss it in a clearer manner. I'll contact you off-line and throw some thoughts out for you.

[Rex Brynen]

From the Washington Post, 6 October 2007:

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

[Jedburgh]

The WWII interrogation effort at Ft. Hunt was mentioned in the 30 May 07 NYT article that initiated an earlier discussion thread on interrogation.

...But some of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called “Educing Information" say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were effectively questioned without coercion.

“It far outclassed what we’ve done,” said Steven M. Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator and trainer, who has studied the World War II program of interrogating Germans. The questioners at Fort Hunt, Va., “had graduate degrees in law and philosophy, spoke the language flawlessly,” and prepared for four to six hours for each hour of questioning, said Mr. Kleinman, who wrote two chapters for the December report.

Mr. Kleinman, who worked as an interrogator in Iraq in 2003, called the post-Sept. 11 efforts “amateurish” by comparison to the World War II program, with inexperienced interrogators who worked through interpreters and had little familiarity with the prisoners’ culture....

More on Ft. Hunt:

Fort Hunt - The Forgotten Story

Interrogation of U-Boat Crews at Fort Hunt

[tequila]

Two problems with torture - COL (ret) Stuart A. Herrington, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 21 Oct.

Recently revealed White House memos have raised the ugly question yet again: Is torturing prisoners captured in the Global War on Terrorism an effective and permissible use of our nation's might?

I served 30 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer, which included extensive experience as an interrogator in Vietnam, in Panama and during the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of these sensitive missions, my teams and I collected mountains of excellent, verified information, despite the fact that we never laid a hostile hand on a prisoner. Had one of my interrogators done so, he would have been disciplined and most likely relieved of his duties.

Since my retirement, I have twice answered the Army's call, journeying to Guantanamo and Iraq to evaluate interrogation procedures. Subsequently, when the terrible tsunami of verified reports of detainee torture by American soldiers overwhelmed the dikes, the Army asked me to assist in training a new battalion of Iraq-bound Army interrogators in non-coercive interrogation techniques ...

[Abu Buckwheat]

Two problems with torture - COL (ret) Stuart A. Herrington, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 21 Oct.

Aaarrgh Tequila! You got the jump on my next Blog entry!