One stop interrogation & interviewing resource

[rborum]

dritalin - I wrote one of the chapters you refer to in the "Educing Information" report. Others have offered the wisdom of their experience in their here (and there are some very experienced HUMINTers among them). In the HUMINT world that experience is remarkably valuable.

Having said that, anecdotes are dominating the public debate about intelligence interviewing. Some people are saying "I know a case where a guy was subjected to X and then he talked." Does that mean that X works?

My I re-frame your question a bit? Instead of trying to decide "what works better with Afghan EPWs", it might be useful to think about how you would develop a plan to determine what kind of approaches might be more or less successful with a particular detainee, from whom you are seeking particular kinds of information, in a particular context. Whether a strategy "works" is not simply a matter of whether a detainee "talks" or provides information. The objective is accurate, useful information in a strategically-relevant timeframe. It is certainly possible to create conditions in the interrogation that interfere with the accuracy of information.

Regarding the use of coercive techniques, the FM sets the ground rules for now. Those techniques do not appear to have a promising future in US interrogation policy. I did a recent book chapter with a couple of colleagues on recent trends in US interrogation policy and practice which I have on my SelectedWorks, if you're interested: http://works.bepress.com/randy_borum/ (Jedburgh - I hope providing this link does not violate the forum's ROE. If so, let me know and I will remove it. I was just trying to be responsive to the RFI - Thank you, sir)

[Jedburgh]

....Regarding the use of coercive techniques, the FM sets the ground rules for now. Those techniques do not appear to have a promising future in US interrogation policy. I did a recent book chapter with a couple of colleagues on recent trends in US interrogation policy and practice which I have on my SelectedWorks, if you're interested: http://works.bepress.com/randy_borum/ (I hope providing this link does not violate the forum's ROE. If so, let me know and I will remove it. I was just trying to be responsive to the RFI)

Randy - many of the board members have their own websites and blogs, and the board admins and moderators do not have an issue with any of them discussing/linking their own material in the context of an ongoing discussion or in response to an RFI. It is only when someone comes to the board and their only participation is to throw up links to their own stuff that it is considered equivalent to spam.

Back to the discussion, your point that interrogators should develop a plan to determine what kind of approaches might be more or less successful with a particular detainee, from whom you are seeking particular kinds of information, in a particular context, is very important. Interrogation is all about nuance and fine specifics; any general one-size-fits-all approach that is claimed to be effective is a gross misrepresentation of the case. Of course, human beings being what they are, even interrogators trained to understand nuance and fine specifics can get lazy over time and end up approaching every source with their preferred method, ignoring indicators that it won't succeed. That is why in most of my discussions of the subject I continually stress the necessity of leadership involvement, continual professional development and sustained mentoring for the development of an effective core interrogation capability.

Looking at your website, I just realized that the paper Interviewing Al-Qaeda-related subjects: A law enforcement perspective is a slightly modified version of the NCIS paper Interviewing & Interrogating Militant Islamists: A Law Enforcement Perspective - by the same authors, of course. A bit over two years ago I wrote a rambling, informal review of the latter piece here.

Ted

[rborum]

Looking at your website, I just realized that the paper Interviewing Al-Qaeda-related subjects: A law enforcement perspective is a slightly modified version of the NCIS paper Interviewing & Interrogating Militant Islamists: A Law Enforcement Perspective - by the same authors, of course. A bit over two years ago I wrote a rambling, informal review of the latter piece here.

Ted - First - thanks for the clarification on the protocol for links. I get it, and appreciate your patience with my learning curve.

Thanks also for pointing me to your thoughtful analysis/review of our interim NCIS report back in 2007. It's always encouraging to hear that ideas we put out are making sense and that many of us are fundamentally on the same page as we move forward on the interrogation issue. A number of those involved in the "Educing Information" project are currently working to promote an initiative for the US - in partnership with our allies - to become world leaders in non-coercive interrogation/intelligence interviewing over the next 5-10 years.

[davidbfpo]

Found this on an occassionally used website: http://jiox.blogspot.com/ and this NDIC paper 'Interrogation: WW2, Vietnam & Iraq (2008): http://www.dia.mil/college/pubs/pdf/12010.pdf

Dropped here as it is a current thread, although not Afghan-specific.

Started to skim through, so may add more later. Some great parts, including an Israeli viewpoint and this quote:

The maximum opportunity for intelligence gathering comes in the first hours after an arrest, before others in a group can possibly know that their walls have been breached. The bottom line is fear works. The best way to use this fear is when it is genuine and originates with the source. Fear that is not introduced artificially, but originates solely in the mind of the prisoner, is the most effective.

.

davidbfpo

[Outlaw 7]

In reference to a number of answers on this particular thread--and referencing the Intelligence Boards' article on new ways of educing information look at a Tactical Questioning method taught initially at the NTC until late 2007 until a SIGINT MAJ felt 1) it was to difficult to learn by untrained personnel and 2) both he and Ft. H felt it was in violation of the new FM but when challenged by the creator to show cause to the concept Ft. H failed to respond to the challenge as the technique had been taught for a long number of years as part of the Strategic Debriefing course and up through 2006 as part of the EAIT course for JIDC bound interrogators.

The creator discovered the technique years ago while working for over 15 years at the Joint Refugee Operations Center-Berlin (JROC-B) (used in over 5000 strategic debriefings) and it is called the sprial questioning method. It worked extremely well with German, Russian, Czech, Polish, and Hungarian refugess. The creator of the technique also had the opportunity to use the concept in over 800 detainee interrogations, debriefings, and screenings while in Iraq from 2005 to 2006 to include four interrogations conducted surprisingly in German.

When coupled with the culture of the working environment it builds rapid rapport and allows even young inexperienced interrogators to move forward, is great is detecting deception and extremely good at discovering what the detainee is trying to protect when he lies.

What is interesting is when former DEA/ATF LEP types had the class at the NTC they all smiled and commented "that is exactly the way we work--we simply did not have a name for it".

[davidbfpo]

Outlaw 7,

Welcome aboard. Are there any open source references to the spiral questioning method? A Google search was not very helpful, but did find a Abu M link to a 2006 US F2-22.3 Manual: http://www.army.mil/institution/army...f/fm2-22-3.pdf

Thanks

[jmm99]

You have an interesting post in this thread, and another here.

That said, please introduce yourself (e.g., in Tell Us About You). Some of us are old-fashioned and like to know with whom we speak.

Enjoy yourself at SWC.

Mike