Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation

[SWJED]

30 May NY Times - Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti.

As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices...

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by NY Times

....a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable....

Wonder how much they paid those "experts"? All they needed to do was ask a few old, experienced HUMINT NCOs. The best advice in the world, for free. Read my posts on interrogation.

[sullygoarmy]

Kind of apples and oranges trying to compare interrogating German prisoners of war versus Al Qaeda terrorists. I agree, however, that the military can learn alot from good police interrogaters and polygraphists. A good polygraphist can get more information from a suspect with a broken polygraph machine just from the way questions are asked and responses are given. Of course we have to integrate culture and language when dealing with AQ but the techniques are similar.

[Merv Benson]

Jed, do you have a link?

[Jedburgh]

AKO Log-In and BCKS MI Net registration required

Interviewing & Interrogating Militant Islamists: A Law Enforcement Perspective
The paper is unclass, and not even FOUO or LES - but it is not generally available. It is uploaded on BCKS MI Net, but I'll go ahead and repost my comments here regarding the paper.

The perspectives presented here reflect the collective input of professionals with backgrounds in the fields of law enforcement, intelligence analysis and operations, psychology, and psychiatry, and who have conducted interrogations or otherwise been involved in interviews with militant Islamists. The strategies and practices described have been used effectively in interrogation with militant Islamist terrorists and their supporters. These approaches are offered here to law enforcement personnel, not as a prescription or a cookbook, but as a springboard for thoughtful planning and execution of successful interviews and interrogations.....

This is a good paper, broadly covering interrogation methodology in the COE. As the title states, it is written for a LE audience, but it is applicable to all whose mission encompasses interrogations of this nature. If I have a criticism of this paper, it is that it touches on certain key areas too briefly and doesn’t clarify the subject adequately before moving on. The following are just some rambling thoughts on the authors’ work…..

The premise of this paper is the effectiveness of the empathetic approach in interrogation, and they repeatedly emphasize that an overly aggressive/forceful approach tends to be counterproductive. This was also stated clearly back in 1969 by the Army Vietnam-era FM 30-15 Intelligence Interrogation in Chapter 4, Interrogation Support for Stability Operations.

The paper continually mentions, but never clarifies, the individual elements of the triad of factors essential to effective manipulative human communications: the cognitive, emotional and kinesic elements. The authors also allude to the use of control and repeat questions (which every Army interrogator is quite familiar with) but they are never clearly discussed. I agree with the authors’ conclusions within the paper, but I feel by failing to sufficiently amplify the narrative they leave a chunk of the target audience in the dark.

The sections on “Foundations of the Rapport-Based Interview Approach” and “Preparing for the Interview” are fairly solid, and contain many elements with which most professional HUMINT’ers are well aware. However, as many of us have experienced, operational constraints such as time, manpower (both simple numbers and capabilities/experience), language ability/translator availability, area characteristics, etc. all can negatively impact the ideal scenario the authors envision.

For those who haven’t read it, I highly recommend Oreste Pinto’s “The Spycatcher Omnibus”. Lt.Col. Pinto was a CI officer who debriefed/interrogated refugees from WWII continental Europe as they arrived in England. Many statements in this paper are faint echoes of the detailed instructional tales Lt.Col. Pinto relates in his book.

The observations on associative vs linear thought processes are very important, as are those on shame vs guilt in Middle Eastern culture. These two issues certainly deserve a much more detailed study in the context of interrogation.

The paper touches on “developing themes”, as is taught throughout the LE community in the Reid technique (it is also a course that is often made available to Army HUMINT’ers). But this is something I’ve long had mixed feelings about. Sure, a capable, experienced interrogators can subtly blend in a “theme” to help leverage his cognitive interrogation skills to effectively extract information. However, in lesser hands this methodology is nothing more than a longer narrative version of a leading question. And we all understand that’s a no-go.

Finally, I strongly concur with the statement that “the interview may even assume some characteristics common to a negotiation”. After all, interrogation and negotiation are both forms of manipulative human communications. Regarding negotiation, keep in mind that there are two distinct aspects of negotiation, which tend to be separate fields of study. Interest-based negotiation for business and politics, as exemplified by Roger Fisher and William Ury in “Getting to Yes” provides a wealth of value for those smart enough to understand the principles and shift the context. The skills of LE crisis negotiation (hostage/barricade/suicide) also will provide you a significant return on investment the next time you’re sitting down with a source.

[Abu Buckwheat]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Wonder how much they paid those "experts"? All they needed to do was ask a few old, experienced HUMINT NCOs. The best advice in the world, for free. Read my posts on interrogation.

I wasn't one of those experts they consulted but I have worked as an interrogator/translator/analyst and on the other side of the coin ended up running a SERE program to defeat these tactics when used by AQ or a threat military and I am ashamed to think that our government and military commanders think this works.

Many of the techniques that have come in for such criticism were based on those used in the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training, or SERE, in which for decades American service members were given a sample of the brutal treatment they might face if captured.

Because the training was developed during the cold war, the techniques later adopted by the C.I.A. and Special Operations officers in Iraq were based, at least in part, on how the Soviet Union and its allies were believed to treat prisoners. Such techniques included prolonged use of stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation and even waterboarding.

A report on detainee abuse by the Defense Department’s inspector general, completed in August but declassified and released May 18, gives new details of how the military training was “reverse engineered” for use by American interrogators. It says that as early as 2002, some SERE trainers and some military intelligence officers vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored.

Absolutely right! We have been teaching for four decades that the Geneva Convention and global outrage against countries that don't provide the GC and human rights in captivity would pressure them into providing better treatment. It worked in Vietnam and in Korea and now "according to the press" it appears these techniques were taken stock from our SERE training manuals which DO NOT represent American methods of interrogation or prisoner management - they were simulations of our enemies. I won't get into OPSEC but let me say this ... Torture, Stress and Duress doesn't work to meet our goals. Period. Now we have GURANTEED all of our future PWs will be denied requests followed by "Did you give the prisoners of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo these same rights?" Truth or lie, it will defeat 50 years of consolidated SERE effort to help our captive PWs. Tens of thousands of Americans endured torture and depravity from the Indian War to OIF to create this deep corporate base of knowledge, this wall of resistance information and we have taken it down with our own hands!

This decision to use coercion and the constant requests for more permission to abuse is a mindless stupidity done without thinking through the consequences!

Torture and duress will get anyone to talk but nothing, and I mean nothing, they say will be worth the spit that produced it or the shame and disgrace that we have gotten from resorting to our enemy's methods. Getting Zarqawi was good Intel work with no (known) use of torture or real S&D, if OSINT is to be believed. 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. The more he resists the more frustrated the interrogtor gets and then what? You kill him? We've had that happen already. Who here is proud of that?

At SERE we taught our students that resistance was possible and that the more a threat force applied torture or coercion showed that you were winning the small battle between you and an authoritarian enemy.

I guess we are that enemy now and we are essentially running a real-world/Pass-fail SERE program for AQ and the Iraqi insurgents. Let me say this here and now. These 30,000 "terror suspects" from Iraq and the Ghan, gulity or innocent will come out of Camp Buca, Baghram or Abu G as "stress inoculated" people with a GRUDGE against America. Match that with a deep religious belief that Allah has more planned for them and you have a man that will die to avoid in captivity or, if captured can quicky slip into a nether world of insanity ... as we said at SERE "You can't interrogate the dead or the crazy." Now imagine them teaching their experience to hundreds of new Jihadi recruits and running their own resistance programs ... its already happening. We are creating our own professional resistors.

I've read torturer and victim bios from Argentina, Israel, Rwanda, Britain, China, Laos, Vietnam and went to death camps in Germany, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda just to wrap my head around how these guys could do such a thing to PWs. In Cambodia I saw a waterboarding technique perfected to a science ... until I went to SERE. I taught Geneva Convetions as a shield to abuse for four years and Voila! Because of 9/11, my own government is embracing this strategy? I am disgusted.

We as men of honor need to run AWAY from this. Now. ... and use all of the best minds in this country to develop a non-coercive program that makes any captured Jihadi our best friends forever and want to move to Iowa and study agriculture ... there is no "24" taking bomb scenario worth the honor and soul of this great nation. If there was then someone so committed will die before they talk.

[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]

Originally Posted by Abu Buckwheat

....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]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Interogators know it too.

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by RTK

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]

Originally Posted by slapout9

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]

Originally Posted by slapout

.....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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...