SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence

Intelligence What do we know, need to know, and how do we get there?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2010   #41
Outlaw 7
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Helendale, CA
Posts: 18
Default New Interrogation Educing Style

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".
Outlaw 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010   #42
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10,646
Default Spiral questioning - sources?

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
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010   #43
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Welcome, Outlaw 7

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
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010   #44
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default "sprial questioning" or "spiral questioning" ?

The latter turns up some Google hits - e.g., here and here:

Quote:
Spiral Questions to Provoke Thinking

Spiral questioning helps students think about the content they are studying in a sequence that begins with basic information and moves to higher levels of thinking and understanding. In this video clip, an 8th grade world geography teacher uses the strategy in her class.
and:

Quote:
Spiral Questioning: Lessons and questions need to be carefully structured to lead students through a step-by-step process of discovery. Students should first explore using basic cognitive skills- observation, description, identification, recall-and then spiral to eventually higher levels of cognition such as synthesis, application, and interpretation through class discussions.
Please clarify.

Mike
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010   #45
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,807
Default

Outlaw7, is spiral questioning similar to Peak Of Tension Questioning?
slapout9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010   #46
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Peak Of Tension Questioning is

that used in polygraph exams ? - as briefly explained here.

Hey Slap, I'm chasing you around today.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #47
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
that used in polygraph exams ? - as briefly explained here.

Hey Slap, I'm chasing you around today.
That is about the right idea but you don't need a polygraph to do it. You start out by asking rather innocent questions that you know the answer to and then move to more incriminating questions (tension) and then back to easier questions and then back to more incriminating questions. You are establishing a behavior baseline on how the subject acts when honest so you can compare it to when he is dishonest. Kind of a rollercoaster to the truth.
This guy talks about it somewhat.
http://focusedinterview.com/


Better link to the manual itself....but this may be an old manual.
http://www.mindcontrol101.com/pdfs/FIsystem.pdf

Last edited by slapout9; 01-10-2010 at 12:41 AM. Reason: link
slapout9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #48
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Good ideas ...

in the Focused Interview Manual. Read the whole thing - quick read.

His discussions of various Fight, Flight, Freeze responses has some parallels in Dave Grossman's On Combat and On Killing. This method seems well suited to an introverted, intuitive type who drags in everything from the environment that seems material.

Regards

Mike
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #49
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
....You start out by asking rather innocent questions that you know the answer to and then move to more incriminating questions (tension) and then back to easier questions and then back to more incriminating questions. You are establishing a behavior baseline on how the subject acts when honest so you can compare it to when he is dishonest. Kind of a rollercoaster to the truth....
If needed for training, there are some good examples of that precise method on the current TV show The Mentalist that can be clipped out. Of course its use is dramatized for television, with the main LE characters asking the basic initial interview questions then the title character pouncing in with the incriminating questions to observe reaction behavior. The true intent of the method is for the single interviewer.
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #50
Outlaw 7
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Helendale, CA
Posts: 18
Default New Form Of Educing Information

To answer the various questions raised concerning "spiral questioning". As a former Special Forces Vietnam veteran, and after a long career of strategic debriefing in Berlin, training interrogation reservists, being asked to interrogate in Iraq, having participated in role playing for new interrogator trainees/EAIT trainees, and having worked with S2s/HUMINT Teams on 34 BCT roatations at the NTC I have been in a great position to watch the interrogation field evolve since 1966.

One of the truly major problems that led to Abu Ghriab outside of "others" involvement was the simple fact that 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.

I attended a DoD directed training course in early 2005 for all interrogators assigned to the JIDC at Abu Ghraib where the instructor mirrored alot of what I had over the years been using--rapport, rapport, rapport, and building that rapport via culture. All the Army interrogators at that briefing absolutely rejected that advice as it did not match their former Army training---and they were a Strategic Debriefing Bn from Korea.

When I became a "questioner" in 1973--in those days no one really had a name for what we were doing as I was the first US citizen hired to work with an entire questioning team that was basically German. I "became" an interrogator simply because I spoke fluent German-absolutely no training outside of intensive three weeks of mentoring by the other German interrogators.

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.

Spiral questioning evolved out of the need to get individuals to talk with you who leagally did not have to answer a single question---the core goal is to build rapport and build it fast and at the same time get a feel for information areas, and to check security issues constantly along the way. I also realized that the core concept of being able to "prove" that the person was lying became second in importance---the main goal in understanding the lying was why was the person lying and I then realized it had to do with protecting something.

BUT at Ft. H in 2006 and still today all you hear from young interrogators and EAIT personnel is "he is lying and I got him to break"---the concept of getting someone to "break" is riding a totally wrong horse.

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.

The questioning is constantly changing and the detainee never sees a pattern, and the questions are always getting deeper in depth and breadth--if there is a cover story in play the detainee quickly loses control over it.

Entire process usually takes about 1-2 hours to complete and once it is complete then you can move into the various approaches that had been identified as potentially working with the individual. And it is constantly tied to the culture of the individual involved.

AND it is tied to the concept of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

I believe this is what the Intelligence Science Board is looking for in their article concerning educing information for the 21st century. AND you totally avoid the fight over enhanced methods that achieve nothing.

Example---I first unknowingly tried this on a captured high ranking NVA officer in 1969---I knew he had been living like a dog in tunnels and existing on limited amounts of food prior to capture. Threw him into a hot shower, gave him a clean set of clothes, and sat him down in front of a table full of food, and left him totally alone for a week. He was free to roam the CIDG camp but under guard-then sat him down and in a calm fashion started the questioning --three hours later we had the entire supply bunker locations for two full NVA regiments. I had my first taste of cognitive dissonance.

Hope this answers some of the questions that a number of members have posted-before I was stopped from further NTC training I had trained over seven hunderd personnel in this form of questioning--from Pvts to COLs to former LE personnel and believe me even non trained interrogators understand it and after some practice they tend to get the hang of it.
Outlaw 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #51
Outlaw 7
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Helendale, CA
Posts: 18
Default New Form Of Educing Information

By the way I have even run spiral questioning with another interrogator in the room who was trained by myself in the technique---and it works exceptionally well as the spiral is being worked by two individuals which reinforces the power of the spiral as the detainee is forced to work his answers on two fronts.

It also requires a great interpreter who gets the methodology.
Outlaw 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #52
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw 7
....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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
The creator discovered the technique years ago....
....but now you are stating that it is your creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw 7
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:
Quote:
....before I was stopped from further NTC training.
You could tell us more about that....
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #53
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default And 1266s were doing it even

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedburgh View Post
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.
before that back unto the 50s, even -- not to mention during WW II.
Quote:
And to bring up the subject of statement analysis:

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

You could tell us more about that....
Yep.
Ken White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #54
Outlaw 7
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Helendale, CA
Posts: 18
Default New Form Of Educing Information

To answer a few questions:

1. The actual ASI for Strategic Debriefing did not come into the Army system
until the course was developed out of major input from JROC-B. There was defintely no ASI in the 70s until the course was developed.

2. In 1973 through 1983, the 66 MI Group would often came to JROC-B in order to understand what we were doing as our job description and functions in fact became the basic functions of the new Strategic Debriefing Course. This was due to the fact that we would handle on occassions 3-4 thousand refugees per month at the height of say the Polish distrubances. We handled also on occassions handled 4-5k per month with five screeners and 9 debriefers. And this did not include the constant stream of airliner hijackings coming into Berlin. They the 66MI Group had their own debriefing system in the main West German refugee center, but were not handling the sheer volume we were seeing nor were they having the successes we were having on the Collection side.

3. There were a few Army interrogators assigned to the JROC-B in 1973 and into the 80s, but due to their lack of fluency in their language skill sets even coming straight out of DLI they never performed Strategic Debriefing and were put into the Collection Management side of the house.

3. The goal of both is again I underline it -to gain the rapport of the individual thus the ability to gain information-regardless of whether he is a Ansar al Sunnah member or he is a Czech nuclear engineer or a Russian SAM weapons officer. The second goal was/is to detect deception and the last goal was to "see" the cover stories often used by Iraqi's to explain their arrests.

4. Yes I did create the concept in JROC-B and a number of 66 MI Group Interrogation CWOs who came into Berlin during the period 1973 until 1986 to watch our work initially commented "I cannot keep up with your circling as it appears to go nowhere"---once they watched a number of debriefings they fully understood the technique. So I am not so sure that the concept has been around as long as the commenters are alluding to unless someone can show me where in the 66 MI Group something similar was ongoing.

5. If the system is so old and has been around for a long time or is not revoluntionary then why did DOD send in May 2005 a Ph.D with long ties to the HUMINT side to Abu Ghraib to plead with Army interrogators to get onboard with rapport/cultural use in their interrogations. The use of culture has been the core center of Strategic Debriefing for literally years. While the class was mandatory it defintely was not brought into by the Strat Debriefing Bn assigned to Abu Ghraib. The Ph.D was the main investigator who identifed the key failures in Abu Ghraib and his coming back was part of the DOD retraining program for Abu Ghraib.

6. At the NTC a SIGINT MAJ felt that the technique was to difficult for novice interrogators to understand or incorporate during FSO. He then complained to Ft. H where several GS 14/15s felt that there was a violation of the new FM. When it was pointed out that it has been and was still being taught at Ft. H and when the unclass training slides were submitted for review---after over ten calls to them and over ten emails requesting their input to show due cause---absolutely no response ever came back. Feedback from all classes and from the key core group BCT Company Commanders was at a surprsingly high level--often citing ---"why weren't we taught this before our first, second, or third deployments.
It should be pointed out that from late 2006 until now the NTC never really pushed interrogation or MSO from the role playing perspective and the roles were only maybe one page long so while the BCt exercised the S2 side nothing on thre HUMINT really ever got tested and pushed.

7. The reason that Strategic Debriefers often fail on the crossover is that they were never taught the approaches-and vice versa Interrogators in the basic TRADOC course are never taught spiral questioning. It should be noted that a majority of information gained in Iraq came via the Direct questioning approach that TRADOC did not want taught to new interrogators--and direct questioning rolls naturally out of spiral questioning.

8. It should be noted that the DOD mandatory briefing for interrogators in Abu Ghraib listed a long number of characteristics that an interrogator needed in order to be a great interrogator---by the way nothing on the list reflected actually being trained in interrogation.

9. As an example---during my second rotation into Abu Ghraib a number of AF interrogators right out of Ft. H had been there for about three months. I stepped in on the night shift and after several interrogations had over 15 reports in backlog-the average number of reports in backlog by the AF types 0-2 and that after three months. I was often asked why it was easy for me and they were struggling. They were taught the spiral but really did not understood it nor did they tie it to culture. Again a failure on the Ft. H side---it was presented to them in an 8 hour block of instruction but they never really got a true chance to practice as the instructors had to check the blocks and move them on.

I am attempting to show a methodology that both works, addresses the concerns voiced by the Intelligence Board's paper on educing infomation and definitely side steps the need for enhanced techniques.

So people can accept it or reject it, but it has worked well for me in over 6000 debriefings, interrogations, and screenings. I have seen way to many HUMINT failures from too many poorly trained interrogators.
Outlaw 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #55
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default Comments on methodology

I'll leave aside any issues on separation of Strategic Debriefing (ASI) and Interrogation (MOS); when certain methodologies began; and the highpoints or lowpoints of Outlaw 7's career.

Here is what I've gleaned of interest.

Quote:
from Ted (aka Jedburgh)
The "common goal" is simply obtaining intelligence information through human communications.
Pretty simple, but the core concept requires the humans to communicate. That is so whether the questioning is termed an interrogation, an interview or whatever. How to implement that concept is brought home in a short (8-page) memo, Suggestions for Japanese Interpreters Based on Work in the Field (17 Jul 43), linked by Ted in his post here. The context includes "interviews" in the front lines on the Canal and in more secure POW holding areas.

Of the many good points made by MAJ Moran (USMCR), a salient one is removal of the adversarial component from the conversation. So also Outlaw 7's example of the NVA officer:

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
Example---I first unknowingly tried this on a captured high ranking NVA officer in 1969---I knew he had been living like a dog in tunnels and existing on limited amounts of food prior to capture. Threw him into a hot shower, gave him a clean set of clothes, and sat him down in front of a table full of food, and left him totally alone for a week. He was free to roam the CIDG camp but under guard-then sat him down and in a calm fashion started the questioning --three hours later we had the entire supply bunker locations for two full NVA regiments. I had my first taste of cognitive dissonance.
In short, turn the "interrogation" (perceptionally adversarial) into an "interview" (perceptionally non-adversarial)[*]

Stated as a more general concept:

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
Spiral questioning evolved out of the need to get individuals to talk with you who leagally did not have to answer a single question---the core goal is to build rapport and build it fast and at the same time get a feel for information areas, and to check security issues constantly along the way. I also realized that the core concept of being able to "prove" that the person was lying became second in importance---the main goal in understanding the lying was why was the person lying and I then realized it had to do with protecting something.
I'd add that "lying" is not the only way one can attempt to cover a seam or gap. Often the witness truly believes what is objectively a lie. If so, he or she should be very willing to expand on the rest of the story (which may or may not comport with objective fact). Do you squash the "lie" ? I'd say not yet; that comes later down the road. I'd say become genuinely interested in the narrative and allow expansion, expansion, always expansion. [**]

That brings us to the heart of the matter:

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
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.
I can't argue with that - cuz I've been doing "that", and Chip Morgan's Focused Interviewing, in both discovery and office client interviews, for the last 40 years. I've just thought of JMM TTPs as developing rapport and some "meanderings" (purposeful to me; hopefully not apparent to the other person). Trial direct examinations and cross examinations are a little different.

All of this involves "cognitive dissonance" (or terminal dumb on the part of the witness, or an abject lack of preparing the witness by his or her lawyer, in JMM terms):

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
It is remarkable how many people respond to a simple question by elaborate rationalizations.

E.g., in civil litigation, use of written interrogatories and requests for production of documents allow pre-deposition background checking (residence, employment, educational and criminal histories; as well as tax returns, etc.). Normally, you start off depositions by having the witnesss summarize what you already know - simply to settle down the witness. At some point, you toss in a simple question (actually a "closed" question, which could be fairly answered "yes" or "no"), such as "I see you attended Michigan Tech, a tough school. Did you graduate ?"; or "Did you file a 1040 for 2005 ?".

Often times the witness feels compelled to offer a long-explanation, rather than the simple "no" answer which the question calls for. Of what value is this (since non-graduation or non-filing is probably not a crucial issue in the case) ? (1) It tells you something important about the witness (some "cognitive dissonance" in Outlaw 7 terms); (2) it allows you to establish rapport with the witness by empathizing with his explanation - assuming it is irrelevant to the case; and (3) the long explanation may disclose seams or gaps, or lead to disclosure of seams and gaps (which is both relevant and material).

So leaving the inside baseball to you guys, I've found this and other discussions on interrogations (or interviewing, or whatever) most interesting - a form of comparative law study in its practical applications.

Regards

Mike

----------------------
[*] I enjoyed the first sentence of Moran's memo:

Quote:
First of all I wish to say that every interpreter (I like the word "interviewer" better, for any really efficient interpreter is first and last an interviewer) must be himself.
both for the "be yourself" advice, but also for his suggestion to create an "interview-like" atmosphere to what is in reality an interrogation.

Chip Morgan makes the same point, over and over again, in his 2005 manual on Focused Interviewing, linked by Slap a few posts above.


[**] In that context, the methodology requires (1) "you" questions, vice "me" questions ("me" being the interrogator), which bring out the witness' narrative - not the narrative that the questioner would like to hear; and (2) "open" questions, vice "closed" questions ("closed" being simple "yes-no" questions, or most extremely, leading questions with a speech by the questioner), based on the adverb series: "how, where, when, why, etc."

It's remarkable how many lawyers violate these simple rules and try to "bulldoze" their way through what is supposed to be the "discovery" process. Of course, it is equally remarkable how many lawyers have a pathological fear of going to trial (fear of public rejection, I suppose; but I'm not a shrink ).

PS: to Outlaw 7. You're an "old guy" (which both Ken White and I will deny for somewhat varied reasons: I because I still have to figure out what to be when I grow up; Ken because he will never grow up). Thanks for the backgrounder.

Last edited by jmm99; 01-10-2010 at 07:49 PM.
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #56
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

Sorry, Outlaw 7 - but at this point I still don't get anything substantive from your post other than "its all about me".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
The reason that Strategic Debriefers often fail on the crossover is that they were never taught the approaches...
Untrue. I am talking about 96C/97E/35M - who were all originally trained in interrogation, but then spent time away from the field working strat debrief instead. By the time they returned to the tac side, they had forgotten all the skills for operating in the different context and were unable to relearn effectively at the unit. And there is no "vice-versa", for at least the past three decades any 96C/97E/35M about to work the strat debrief mission has to attend the course first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
....plead with Army interrogators to get onboard with rapport/cultural use in their interrogations. The use of culture has been the core center of Strategic Debriefing for literally years.
Even admitting the faults that do exist with interrogation training at the basic level, rapport and culture have always been a central feature of the course. Even in the good ol' Cold War days, students were taught and encouraged to use such aspects to exploit PWs who were members of ethnic minorities within the Soviet Union. It is much more prominent in current training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
....a few Army interrogators assigned to the JROC-B in 1973 and into the 80s, but due to their lack of fluency in their language skill sets even coming straight out of DLI they never performed Strategic Debriefing and were put into the Collection Management side of the house.
That is a load of crap. Sure, that may apply to some, but I personally knew and worked with some outstanding and very fluent non-native speakers of East-Bloc languages who extensively worked the strat debrief mission during the time period you speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
....way to many HUMINT failures from too many poorly trained interrogators.
True. The quality of training and lack of selection has been extensively discussed on this board. Try looking for it and join in the discussion substantively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
I am attempting to show a methodology that both works, addresses the concerns voiced by the Intelligence Board's paper on educing infomation and definitely side steps the need for enhanced techniques.
Thus far you haven't done any of that. All you've done to this point is tout your personal position with several questionable claims. Try talking less about yourself and more about methodology and context.
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #57
Ken White
Council Member
 
Ken White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default Several thoughts...

Outlaw7:
Quote:
1. The actual ASI for Strategic Debriefing did not come into the Army system until the course was developed out of major input from JROC-B. There was defintely no ASI in the 70s until the course was developed.
That may be but strategic debriefing has been around for many years and has been conducted by civilians, contractors, 96Cs, 11F3s, 11F4Ss, MPs and others before that time -- not least on all the DPs post 1945. Oh, and all the Lodge Act enlistees...
Quote:
I am attempting to show a methodology that both works, addresses the concerns voiced by the Intelligence Board's paper on educing infomation and definitely side steps the need for enhanced techniques.
That may also be true and you may have the best thing since Bourbon was developed but you are not making a good case for it...

You also didn't address why NTC stopped you from further training...

jmm99:
Quote:
Ken because he will never grow up
Yea, verily. Hit 18 long ago, had fun, stopped there.

Jedburgh:
Quote:
Sure, that may apply to some, but I personally knew and worked with some outstanding and very fluent non-native speakers of East-Bloc languages who extensively worked the strat debrief mission during the time period you speak of.
I too know a few who were Lodge Act enlistees and later in SF and that was in the very early 60s, so their debriefing service had to be in the 50s. One large, smart Lithuanian ex Wehrmacht Spieß who could con you out of your first born comes to mind...
Ken White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010   #58
Outlaw 7
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Helendale, CA
Posts: 18
Default New Form Of Educing Information

Jedburgh---trying to understand your thinking.

Show me the individuals you speak of from the 70s and 80s out here in the field still trying to change the system that is not working. Where are they---they are not in the TRADOC training system nor or in the CTC system or at CAC on the TRISA side. Where are they? Where are they in the development of new educing techniques or theory? Where are they in the development of role playing and role writing? Show me the experienced personnel from the
70s and 80s out here trying to ramp-up 10-15 BCT HUMINTers prior to a deployment when in the 14 months since their return from a deployment they have done absolutely no sustainment training. OR let's see how do you tie a Multifunctional Team (MFT) to the interrogation process or overall HUMINT process when BCT Cmdrs have no idea of what a MFT does. Where are the experienced battlefield forensics types who also have deep interrogation experience?

I am personally not so sure you have read the Intelligence Board's article on Educing Information, nor am I sure you have ever been on a TIGER Team or worked at a BCT level where the system has declared you to be the judge, jury, defense lawyer, and prosecutor.

Blogging is a great past time --join us in the field in either Iraq or Afghanistan and try to make the system work and then tell me it is about me. Show me an interrogation technique from your side that answers how a young interrogator who has 96 hours is to proceed? Show me a technique from you that allows a patrol member to get into easily a conversation with an Afghan national and not make it look like an interrogation to the Afghan. What is the technique in TQ that allows a Company Cmdr to make the decision to release or move up the ladder? What is the questioning technique that is the most effective in getting an Afghan tribal council meeting to reveal information so necessary in counterinsurgency.

You talk the problems to death---where are the solutions?

I could go into how you tie "open source warfare" to interrogation and how that ties nicely into the spiral concept. Or I could discuss the recent research released in Nature magazine concerning "Ecology of Human Warfare" and how it verifies "open source warfare", but I see nothing of that tied into spiral questioning or other forms of interrogation techniques in your blog.

“The goal of the interrogation process is to develop the truth.” This simple
statement captures the spirit that animates Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art. The “truth” awaiting development in this case is what we think we know and what we really know about educing information (EI), a politically neutral term that encompasses often highly controversial human intelligence collection activities such as interrogation, strategic debriefing, and elicitation. In his article, “Approaching Truth: Behavioral Science Lessons on Educing Information from Human Sources,” Dr. Randy Borum explains: “Almost no empirical studies in the social and behavioral sciences directly address the effectiveness of interrogation in general practice, or of specific techniques in generating accurate and useful information from otherwise uncooperative persons (emphasis in the original).”

I was throwing open a discussion on a way of educing information-it can be discussed or ignored as I really do not care. Maybe we have ignored it way to long and so therefore caused the problems at Abu Ghraib, the black sites, or in Bagram or Gitmo.

I am basically tired of having to answer with each new employment position--"do you expect any blowback from Abu Ghraib". So maybe I am extremely interested in the success of educing information so maybe you are right it is about me as I doubt you are being asked "are you expecting any blowback" by anyone writing into this blog.

Have learned from this to avoid your site as a number of others do.
Outlaw 7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010   #59
jmm99
Council Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,021
Default If we were drinking beer ...

in the Monte Carlo, I'd say: "Gentlemen, please take it outside".

This is supposed to be a discourse on Interrogation in Afghanistan, where the issue of methodology (and comments upon it) are valid items to discuss.

Ad hominems from any side are out of bounds.

My take

Mike

PS: to Outlaw 7: I'd suggest you re-consider this:

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
Have learned from this to avoid your site as a number of others do.
not because I care from a personal standpoint whether you stick around or not; but for the fact that you do raise an interesting approach (no matter who invented it or when) which is similar to my approach and (I think) Slap's.

As to this:

Quote:
from Outlaw 7
I was throwing open a discussion on a way of educing information-it can be discussed or ignored as I really do not care.
Yes, you do care.

It's your choice to drop the ruck or not.

I'd as soon continue the discourse on methodologies and comments upon them.

In any event, best in your quest.

Mike

Last edited by jmm99; 01-11-2010 at 12:21 AM. Reason: add PS
jmm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010   #60
Jedburgh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw 7
Show me.....

--join us

You talk....

I could.....
Look - this isn't about me and/or you. I'm not going to get into a pointless 'net discussion talking about my experience vs your experience. Why don't you simply enter openly and substantively into the discussion? I already said let's hear less about you and more about the methodology. You have yet to attempt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
I was throwing open a discussion on a way of educing information.....
You contributed to a discussion that was already open and active without appearing to link in with what was being discussed. Your post appeared to be primarily self-promotion. As has been pointed out several times - if you actually made the minimal effort to read and search the board on interrogation - that there are several focused discussions about interrogation on this board. Please feel free to join one. This is a discussion board, not a blog. What that means is that we should be engaging in the free interchange of ideas.

So, instead of talking at the board blowing your own horn about how great spiral questioning is, how about discussing with the membership the strengths of spiral questioning as opposed to other interrogation methodologies. Compare it with the methodology as delineated in FM 2-22.3, compare it with Cognitive Interview methodology or the Reid technique, or LSI......or do you feel that it can be integrated with and complement other methodologies? Does it include kinesic or NLP considerations? etc. etc. etc.

Any moke can come on the board and say they've conducted thousands of interrogations/debriefs and claim they've come up with the greatest questioning method since the Syrian Chair. What matters here is substantive discussion of the current topic, not claims of past greatness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw7
Have learned from this to avoid your site as a number of others do.
If anyone learns anything from this, please let it be not to come on this board in a self-promoting manner making numerous questionable claims. There are too many regulars on this board, from several nations, with experience across the operational spectrum. Between their collective memory and the gathered historical expertise, little that is questionable will fly for very long.
Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
coin, counter terrorism, counterterrorism, defendants, intelligence, interrogation, law enforcement, memory, peace, prisoners, reid technique, suspects, witnesses

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Africa's Commandos - new book on the RLI davidbfpo Historians 281 09-04-2013 10:20 AM
The Stop Snitching Phenomenon: Breaking the Code of Silence Jedburgh Law Enforcement 23 03-27-2013 12:24 PM
Interrogation in Afghanistan dritalin RFIs & Members' Projects 39 02-10-2010 02:42 PM
How To Stop IEDs SteveMetz Catch-All, OIF 42 11-13-2007 09:15 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation