Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation

[Presley Cannady]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Although its a good read, take Educing Information with a grain of salt.

Indeed, but I still have to point out that Educing Information is not unique in this fashion. If I were to consider the document alone and its included bibliography, we have at best a review of the existing literature. In fact, I'd credit the authors for largely avoiding the informal synthesis typical of works dealing with the art of practice rather than scientific foundation. This still doesn't leave me with a good impression of the state of the interrogative profession.

That's a load of crap. The bibliography is actually very weak, not to mention appearing to have a few too many periodical opinion/journalistic pieces listed for the nature of the work. More importantly, it doesn't include Pinto, Tourison or a few other valuable works in the field of intelligence interrogation, and it completely glosses over the extensive works available in the field of LE interrogation, listing only a few representative samples.

I'm sure Educing's bibliography misses a ton of memoirs and advisories, but adding more doesn't change the fact that we're still dealing with a subject that lacks a serious empirical basis. And yes, there is an extensive library on interrogation in the LE literature, but it suffers from the same problem as its little brother in the national security space--it is filled with work that is either prescriptive, autobiographical, or a synthesis of the two (with maybe a proposed application of actual scientific knowledge). Take a look the FBI's bibliography. Certainly, it's target audience is the operator, but there isn't a single work there that deals with models with roots in testable theory.

Not to mention key, related works in other fields of manipulative human communications (i.e. crisis negotiation)

I'm all for building on existing scientific knowledge, but why is it five decades after John Reid started preparing his techniques we're still evaluating their effectiveness by self-reported practitioner satisfaction and conviction rates? Sure, it's a great, but indirect way to feel comfortable about the righteousness of some informal theory, but it's a poor means of rejecting alternatives.

There has been substantive and significant study and evaluation in recent years of the cognitive, emotional and kinesic aspects of interrogation, and of tighter integration of intelligence support to interrogation (it takes info to get info) - to state that there has been no systematic study of at all for decades of interrogation methodologies and their relative effectiveness may be true in the armchair academic world, but such a statement does a great disservice to a number of intelligence professionals, departed, retired and current.

Look, I'm not knocking the artful approach, didactics or anything that's not strictly positivist. I don't believe war was a useless trade employing ignorant people for millenia before man started applying the scientific toolkit. Ken White is absolutely right when he points out that professionals can't afford to blindly follow models or let quantitative uncertainty lead them to ruin or inaction; they're obligated to form the best theory of action they can with what information and experience they have. I imagine the same holds true for interrogators. That's not the issue. The question is whether a certain set of techniques are bad ideas. Unless we can say EIT is ineffective by simple inspection, we have to admit that the research in this area is woefully inadequate to the task of finally answering the question. And that's why there's political controversy in the first place. You can't say the science is settled when there's no science to begin with.

[bourbon]

Lemonade Boarding

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

The question is whether a certain set of techniques are bad ideas. Unless we can say EIT is ineffective by simple inspection, we have to admit that the research in this area is woefully inadequate to the task of finally answering the question.

Enhanced Interrogation is a puerile term, used to clothe techniques that are illegal or at least highly questionable. The question whether they are a bad idea, from a strategic standpoint, has been answered. Certainly from my personal, biased perspective, as a professional HUMINTer and interrogator with over two decades of experience, I see absolutely no need to compromise ourselves further with "testing" methods that have shown themselves to be strategic liabilities.

In sum, there is no need to waste resources answer the question of the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of what you refer to as "EIT". What is needed, is more effective selection of personnel, combined with better training and professional leadership in fostering the very effective methods that rest on the human communications triad of cognition, kinesics and emotion. We have a lot of interrogators, but we have very few effective interrogators.

To quote Forrest, that's all I have to say about that.

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Enhanced Interrogation is a puerile term, used to clothe techniques that are illegal or at least highly questionable.

I largely agree with the gist your post, but on this narrow issue of terminology, it is not as simple as engaging in word play. "Torture" is illegal and has a legal definition. Until one makes a legal determination of whether the techniques used fit that definition, calling them torture can have the effect of prematurely asserting that interrogators were breaking laws (a question of law, not a question of personal preference in terminology).

A lot of terms rub a lot of people the wrong way - "undocumented worker" being another example that many people think is just a PC term for the crude label of "illegal immigrant." A dispassionate look at the reasons why these terms are used reveals that it is not just CYA or PC run amok. Sure, people favoring the antiseptic labels often have an agenda, but if their label is more appropriate, then their agenda is irrelevant.

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

...on this narrow issue of terminology, it is not as simple as engaging in word play.

As a practitioner, I can't help but see it as word play. What we do is either interrogation or torture. There is no such thing as "enhanced" interrogation.

In the conduct of interrogation we use all of our skills and accepted legal methodologies to obtain the maximum amount of information in the minimum amount of time. Its hard work - and not a matter of simply asking a few questions. There's no half-assing it - unless the interrogator is simply incompetent (which goes back to the fundamental issues of training and leadership).

Thus, the term "enhanced" interrogation implies that an interrogator is holding back and not doing all he can to accomplish the mission. As a mindset, of course, this is common with some in leadership/command positions - ignorant of interrogation methodologies - who think that if the interrogator would just push harder and use those iffy techniques the source would break. Therein lies the path to ruin.

Torture, on the other hand, is easy. Any monkey can apply physical and psychological coercion until the source breaks and tells him what he wants to hear. Short of the popular perceptions of torture, stress positions and what is referred to as "enhanced interrogation" do not fall within the realm of professional interrogation methodologies, but are just the easy fallback tools of incompetent interrogators and reflect very poorly on their leadership/command.

[Presley Cannady]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Enhanced Interrogation is a puerile term, used to clothe techniques that are illegal or at least highly questionable.

No argument here, but we could start a whole new forum if we spent time cataloguing all the terms the security field has generated in order to sanitize its work. I use the term to refer specifically to methods, known and unknown, employed by the United States from 2001 to 2005 subjected to OLC scrutiny in the same time frame. I'm neither a lawyer nor a psychologist, so forgive me for sticking to the literature.

The question whether they are a bad idea, from a strategic standpoint, has been answered. Certainly from my personal, biased perspective, as a professional HUMINTer and interrogator with over two decades of experience, I see absolutely no need to compromise ourselves further with "testing" methods that have shown themselves to be strategic liabilities.

I won't argue whether or not EIT was a strategic blunder, just that some day a theory will emerge regardless of whether or not America or the West is uniquely disadvantaged in the race to discover it.

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

What we do is either interrogation or torture. There is no such thing as "enhanced" interrogation.

Not being a practitioner myself and knowing less than squat about it, I'll take your comment as 100% accurate. Nonetheless, you must realize that torture has a different meaning in your field of practice than it does in a court of law. Just as most people don't understand your practice, they also don't understand the law. If you, as a subject matter expert, declare "this is torture" that is not a legal conclusion. But to the unwashed masses, they see that an SME declares it to be torture, they see that torture is illegal and then they conclude that the law was broken.

Sadly, much of the scream-fest surrounding this issue is not occurring for the purpose of determining best practices. Rather, it is a political battle being waged to determine how history will be written. That is why EIT was put forth as an alternative description to torture.

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Thus, the term "enhanced" interrogation implies that an interrogator is holding back and not doing all he can to accomplish the mission.

While not a justification for the word "torture" I do think that is a very good explanation for why EIT is also misleading.

Perhaps "non-traditional" or "non-standard." Now I'm starting to sound like people I dislike.

[Presley Cannady]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Thus, the term "enhanced" interrogation implies that an interrogator is holding back and not doing all he can to accomplish the mission.

I doubt that was the intention when they came up with the label. That said, social science methods are not ranked along a single measure of effectiveness. Their utility varies depending on the sample condition, time frame, even the type of answer sought after. I thought interrogators thought much the same of their own toolkit, whether it includes coercion or not. Tricking a resisting subject into revealing something and jogging a cooperative one's memory are two different problems, no?

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

Tricking a resisting subject into revealing something and jogging a cooperative one's memory are two different problems, no?

Different, but closely related. As I believe I've stated on the board elsewhere, the manipulative human communications skills involved in interrogation, mediation, negotiation, elicitation, interview, debriefing, or in handling sources are essentially the same, differing only for context.

Whether facilitating the extraction of information from a non-cooperative source or eliciting details from a cooperative one, we're dealing with the same fundamentals of cognitive awareness (and more broadly, the triad of cognition-kinesics-emotion that I keep mentioning), although the context of the interaction is significantly different.

However, just as not everyone trained as an interrogator is cut out to actually conduct interrogations effectively, some of those who are broadly competent HUMINTers are not all fitted by nature to operate effectively across the spectrum of operational HUMINT missions, and tend to shine in one or two areas. Unfortunately, in the real world there is no substantive assessment and selection process and the types of missions a given individual works is due entirely to the chance nature of his duty assignment and not at all due to knowledge, skills or abilities.

[jmm99]

Hi Ted and all,

In going back to the start of this thread, I came upon this suggestion:

from 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.

Not being one to lightly disregard your advice (), here are the threads I found (using Advanced Search on interrogation and Jedburgh as poster):

A Lesson About Torture, Half Century On

Profusion of Rebel Groups Helps Them Survive

Terrorism in Indonesia

U.S. Army Adds Interrogators

Republican Revolt over interrogation techniques?

It's the Tribes, Stupid

Battlefield Ethics

It's Our Cage, Too - links to three threads on torture and interrogation in this post.

Advisers Fault Harsh Methods in Interrogation - this thread

Extraordinary Rendition

HUMINT-Centric Ops

Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII

Semantic Search Engine as a model for Intel Analysis tool

Rendition in the Southern Cone: Operation Condor

"Face" among the Arabs

Iran in the News

Stalin World?

Gitmo and the lawyers!

Revising FM 3-24: What needs to change?

Screening for Interrogation

Hamas in Gaza

Iran and Iraq

35M school, Camp Williams UT

Interrogation in Afghanistan

Not to turn this into a Jedburgh Appreciation Page (), but the above threads contain multiple good links and comments by Ted and others.

------------------------------
Different topic

From Jedburgh
What we do is either interrogation or torture.

I'd suggest there is a spectrum: non-coercive interrogation > coercive interrogation > torture. The test for "coercion" is based on the totality of circumstances measured in the specific context of the interrogation. Yes, there may be artificial legalisms (e.g., Miranda warnings) which disregard the totality of circumstances.

The three basic contexts for interrogations are:

1. Military and intelligence community interrogations

2. Law enforcement interrogations

3. Civil litigation and investigative interrogations (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office).

Different purposes and rules for each context, although all involve a search for reliable information (data) and then analysing that to generate an intelligent output.

Regards

Mike

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by jmm99

I'd suggest there is a spectrum: non-coercive interrogation > coercive interrogation > torture. The test for "coercion" is based on the totality of circumstances measured in the specific context of the interrogation. Yes, there may be artificial legalisms (e.g., Miranda warnings) which disregard the totality of circumstances.

Mike,

You're absolutely correct - I was being too starkly simplistic, but with a simple intent. Essentially, if a method or technique under consideration for being used on a source must be run through legal channels first, then don't bother. You're right in that what is under consideration may just be "coercive" in the legal sense as opposed to "torture" - but the mere fact that it has to be approved by higher prior to implementation calls its use into question.

For me, it also raises the question of the interrogator's competence. If he can't exploit the source without resorting to what I referred to earlier as an "easy fallback tool" then perhaps what really needs to be done is get someone else in with the source.

Of course, what I've been discussing primarily is in the context of intelligence interrogations. Thankfully, this means I've never really had to deal significantly with obstacles like Miranda. There exists a substantive body of literature, very interesting, on eliciting admissible information outside of the interrogation context within the bounds of Miranda. That all adds a level of complexity to LE interrogations that I'm glad to have avoided most of my career.

Mike - do you really consider #3, Civil litigation (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office), to be interrogation? Personally, I would have thought that fell in the interview category. LE also conducts extensive investigative interviews with victims, witnesses etc.; they are not interrogations, although an interview may turn into an interrogation. In the context of intelligence interrogation, the screening of sources is also really an interview that can turn into an interrogation. This screening can take place at the interrogation facility or during any tactical operation that involves interaction with the indig.

Finally, I'd like to bring up the niche field of crisis negotiation again. The context is unique, as the negotiator avoids much of the adversarial tone of interrogation because of the need to maintain calm and prevent the hostage/barricade situation from descending into violence. But at the same time, its much more than just a negotiation to end the stand-off, as the negotiator must also attempt to subtly elicit information on the environment, the hostages (if any) and other details. In doing all of this, the negotiator is challenged much more than your average interrogator by having to do his job at a distance - thus completely losing out on the opportunity to observe and exploit the kinesic leg of the communications triad. There is much to be learned from this field by interrogators who take the profession seriously.

Damn, I'm rambling now. Its Friday, and its been a long, cold week.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Mike - do you really consider #3, Civil litigation (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office), to be interrogation? Personally, I would have thought that fell in the interview category. LE also conducts extensive investigative interviews with victims, witnesses etc.; they are not interrogations, although an interview may turn into an interrogation. In the context of intelligence interrogation, the screening of sources is also really an interview that can turn into an interrogation. This screening can take place at the interrogation facility or during any tactical operation that involves interaction with the indig.

That is absolutely correct you Interview witnesses....you Interrogate Suspects. Each is differant and each can turn into the other.

[jmm99]

I do think this:

Mike - do you really consider #3, Civil litigation (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office), to be interrogation? Personally, I would have thought that fell in the interview category.

and you can toss negotiations, and friendly and unfriendly confrontations into the mix - they all involve talking with folks and getting information that you need in order to understand the situation (the analysis part).

If you walk into my office cold as a new client, you will be interrogated. I won't call it that; and hopefully you will leave thinking that we have had a pleasant conversation, albeit at times meandering (I usually have a method in my apparent meanderings). The realistic facts are that some clients are nuts, some are liars and some are simply confused (in fact many are simply confused). You have to find that out in the office, not in the courtroom.

Can't attest to hostage negotiations (an arena demanding great expertise), but I can attest that lawyers trying to negotiate settlements often give away the seams and gaps in their cases.

Now, Slap is right that "you Interview witnesses....you Interrogate Suspects." But, I would suggest that distinction arises from artificial legalisms. Once a person becomes the focus of an LE investigation, the legalisms change. What surprises me is that, after all the legalisms are uttered, how many suspects spill out their guts where the conversations could not in any way be considered "coercive". Of course, "well-trained criminals" are a different breed of cat - they ask for a lawyer and talk about how the Tide won the NC.

Everyone has their own style (whether it be called "interrogation", "interviewing", "negotiating" - or handling a witness or party in a formal examination, pre-trial or trial). I always liked the Columbo (Peter Falk) approach. I always felt I had an advantage where the other party to the conversation thought he or she was smarter, more clever and more devious than I. Columbo was the ultimate technician, which has its own artistry.

And that, Ted, is really rambling.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by jmm99

Now, Slap is right that "you Interview witnesses....you Interrogate Suspects." But, I would suggest that distinction arises from artificial legalisms. Once a person becomes the focus of an LE investigation, the legalisms change. What surprises me is that, after all the legalisms are uttered, how many suspects spill out their guts where the conversations could not in any way be considered "coercive". Of course, "well-trained criminals" are a different breed of cat - they ask for a lawyer and talk about how the Tide won the NC.


Mike

they also usually want a cigarette and a cup of coffee.....or something else if they could get it

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by jmm99

....Now, Slap is right that "you Interview witnesses....you Interrogate Suspects." But, I would suggest that distinction arises from artificial legalisms.

From my perspective, the difference between interview and interrogation is simply the adversarial context of the communication. In an interview, the subject is cooperative. Now that doesn't mean he tells the whole truth, but he is willing to engage in the communication and his general intent is to cooperate. In an interrogation, the source is uncooperative, at least in the initial stages, and he is often in custody or otherwise required to engage in the communication whether he wants to or not.

Originally Posted by jmm99

Everyone has their own style (whether it be called "interrogation", "interviewing", "negotiating" - or handling a witness or party in a formal examination, pre-trial or trial). I always liked the Columbo (Peter Falk) approach. I always felt I had an advantage where the other party to the conversation thought he or she was smarter, more clever and more devious than I. Columbo was the ultimate technician, which has its own artistry.

Well, personally I look at interrogation-interview-negotiation as distinct methods used in very different contextual settings, not as styles. The skills certainly overlap a great deal, but the manner and purpose of interaction is quite different for each. But, again, I'm only speaking from the perspective of an old MI guy, the perspectives from the LE and private sector vary a great deal.

By the way, I'm also a Columbo fan, and that style of questioning can be practical and effective in the right context. I've often used Columbo examples in training.

[jmm99]

than disagreement. E.g.,

From my perspective, the difference between interview and interrogation is simply the adversarial context of the communication. In an interview, the subject is cooperative. Now that doesn't mean he tells the whole truth, but he is willing to engage in the communication and his general intent is to cooperate. In an interrogation, the source is uncooperative, at least in the initial stages, and he is often in custody or otherwise required to engage in the communication whether he wants to or not.

I definitely focus on the adversarial vs non-adversarial; and the cooperative and non-coperative. I've no problem if you want to distinguish between interviews (non-adversarial and cooperative) and interrogations (adversarial and non-cooperative) as working definitions. But, I try to turn "interrogations" into "interviews".

E.g., a deposition of an adverse witness. I want that guy or gal to talk and talk lots - and people usually do want to prove their case. In the process they disclose seams and gaps. Essentially, it's a question of who can last longer, the witness or me. Of course the idea is to tie down the seams and gaps so they can't be covered - and can be exploited later.

Also agreed that situations do call for different TTPs:

Well, personally I look at interrogation-interview-negotiation as distinct methods used in very different contextual settings, not as styles. The skills certainly overlap a great deal, but the manner and purpose of interaction is quite different for each.

but personality is fairly constant. A "bulldozer" is going to be that in interrogation-interview-negotiation situations. So, "style" is really the interviewer's personality.

Also agreed that your world is different from my world (and both from Slap's). That's what I meant by this (using "interrogations" very broadly):

The three basic contexts for interrogations are:

1. Military and intelligence community interrogations

2. Law enforcement interrogations

3. Civil litigation and investigative interrogations (including talking with clients and interested parties in your office).

Different purposes and rules for each context, although all involve a search for reliable information (data) and then analysing that to generate an intelligent output.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

jmm99,for me the legalism entered into the picture when a person or persons become the focus of the investigation, that is when you have to do the Miranda thing.

Pretty good movie to watch about how people lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Games

[jmm99]

from JMM (above)
Now, Slap is right that "you Interview witnesses....you Interrogate Suspects." But, I would suggest that distinction arises from artificial legalisms. Once a person becomes the focus of an LE investigation, the legalisms change.

and

from Slap (above)
jmm99,for me the legalism entered into the picture when a person or persons become the focus of the investigation, that is when you have to do the Miranda thing.

Miranda entered the picture just as I was getting into the game[*]. Before that, confessions and admissions were governed by the "totality of circumstances" test. Under that test, warnings were but one factor to be considered. The FBI and Michigan State Police gave them.

The "totality of circumstances" standard (IMO) was a good one. I suppose that some disparities in results did occur - e.g., a pro-LE judge might find the "totality" OK; a pro-defense judge might find the "totality" NOK. But, the same disparities happen today, except that the rationales are legalistic and technical. The "totality of circumstances" standard looked more to the spirit of the law; Miranda and the other "brightline" tests look more to the law's letter.

It is interesting that the MCA (Military Commission Act) adopted the "totality of circumstances" standard for confessions and admissions. The DTA (Detainee Treatment Act) incorporates FM 2-22.3 as the standard, and the Exec. Order (Jan 2009) applies the manual to all US interrogations. A Wiki on the Field Manual and another on Enhanced interrogation techniques.

Regards

Mike

[*] One of my major "ghost-written" appellate briefs while still in law school was to the Michigan Supreme Court, People v Doverspike 382 Mich 1 (1969), affirming People v. Doverspike, 5 Mich App 181 (1966), using the "totality of circumstances" standard. The confession was after Escabedo and before Miranda. A lost cause - the cops did a pretty good job, even if the warnings they did give were not quite Miranda. The case is not online free; you need a WestLaw or VersusLaw account to access it.