7 ms·

Some of these things are clearly off the deep end. But some of them, especially threats, seem like pretty basic/standard interrogation... There are many techni

Some of these things are clearly off the deep end. But some of them, especially threats, seem like pretty basic/standard interrogation... There are many techniques, but it seems like we have forgotten it is fundamentally manipulative and abusive. I mean, we are surprised to find that threats are used? What?

rqebmm 12y ago
It's been shown that torture is among the least effective way of extracting information from unwilling informants. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_...
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  I'm not talking about waterboarding or what have you. I guess I'm just puzzled that things like threats & slaps are being rolled in with waterboarding. Maybe threats & slaps are not the most effective method, sure- that doesn't really matter. It just seems like people are shocked to find fundamentally abusive/manipulative behavior going on at all. Virtually any form of extracting information from an unwilling informant is going to be. Feeding them lies to make them lose hope ("We've captured your co-conspirators") is abusive. Cozying up to them with donuts and backrubs is manipulative. Practically by definition, interrogation on unwilling informants cannot be some friendly, respectful thing.
  - rqebmm 12y ago
    Hanns Scharf would disagree. "Scharff was opposed to physically abusing prisoners to obtain information. Learning on the job, Scharff instead relied upon the Luftwaffe's approved list of techniques, which mostly involved making the interrogator seem as if he is his prisoner's greatest advocate while in captivity." And this guy was successful as well. "Scharff's approach has been admiringly cited by top US interrogators, such as Ali Soufan"
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Those are still abusive relationships, that he established with his prisoners. Just not physically abusive.
- tormeh 12y ago
  What is the most effective? Anyway, that's really counter-intuitive. I mean, I guess I could deal with pain, but losing body parts, skin or eyes? I would talk pretty fast.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Torture has been shown to be a reasonably good (though not always effective) means of getting people to tell torturers things that they think the torturers want to hear -- whatever the tortured person thinks is most likely to lead to the present cessation of the torture. Its also been shown to be a fairly poor technique, compared to other alternatives, to get accurate, actionable information. As the Senate report itself notes, this was the conclusion of the CIA's own work on interrogation techniques prior to 9/11, which was disregarded in the aftermath of 9/11.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      The White House is apparently not taking a side in the debate over whether it works or not. Which frankly makes me think they believe it does. The easy political win is to say it doesn't, and they aren't taking it. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/542382617711370240 https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/542382617711370240 "Obama official: White House won’t take sides between CIA, which says interrogations worked, and Senate, which says they didn’t."
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
        Sure wish Obama could just grow a pair already.
  - rqebmm 12y ago
    Basically, the most effective means is to create a rapport with the subject, and if treated with compassion and respect, eventually some will come around to their captor's side and reveal whatever information they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation-communication-strategies-and-key-personality-constructs-jessica-heuback/default.htm http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation...
codezero 12y ago
It depends on what you define as a prisoner, too.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I mean, we are surprised to find that threats are used? We are, if not surprised, rightfully offended that our government does not obey its own laws, which define and punish torture -- acts "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control", where "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is defined as: ---[quote]--- (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and ---[end quote]--- (18 USC Sec. 2340) (And its worth noting that this interpretation enshrined into law has often been criticized itself as an attempt to minimize the scope of US limitations on torture and for the government to shirk obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by limiting the understanding of torture to something much narrower than the international understanding underlying the convention, so that can enhanced the degree to which it is disturbing that having narrowed the definition of torture, the government still isn't serious about combatting it, or even just not actively engaging in it, under the narrowed definition.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- blocktuw 12y ago
  > Lack of heat at the facility likely contributed to the death of a detainee. Causing the death of a detainee is not a threat. Perhaps negligence which should have consequences for those who were responsible for this person while in their custody.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    It is if you have more than one detainee.
leroy_masochist 12y ago
I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field. You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them. In my opinion the question is the extent to which it's OK to play with people's psychology through isolation and misinformation, while still giving them 3 hots and a cot. The important thing to note here is that you can still damage people this way if you take it too far; solitary makes people go crazy especially when they're being fed false info about what's going on outside the walls. Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. We're not going to beat it out of them, but how far are we willing to go? Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.
- charonn0 12y ago
  > Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. According to the report, "Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
- mikeash 12y ago
  "Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads." Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Honest question. I see comment after comment after comment in this thread that indicates the commenters are unbelievably frightened of terrorism, to the extent that they're willing to sanction anything, even acts that they admit are otherwise reprehensible, to prevent it. Why are apparently intelligent people so frightened of it?

rqebmm 12y ago

It's been shown that torture is among the least effective way of extracting information from unwilling informants. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_...

sliverstorm 12y ago
I'm not talking about waterboarding or what have you. I guess I'm just puzzled that things like threats & slaps are being rolled in with waterboarding. Maybe threats & slaps are not the most effective method, sure- that doesn't really matter. It just seems like people are shocked to find fundamentally abusive/manipulative behavior going on at all. Virtually any form of extracting information from an unwilling informant is going to be. Feeding them lies to make them lose hope ("We've captured your co-conspirators") is abusive. Cozying up to them with donuts and backrubs is manipulative. Practically by definition, interrogation on unwilling informants cannot be some friendly, respectful thing.
- rqebmm 12y ago
  Hanns Scharf would disagree. "Scharff was opposed to physically abusing prisoners to obtain information. Learning on the job, Scharff instead relied upon the Luftwaffe's approved list of techniques, which mostly involved making the interrogator seem as if he is his prisoner's greatest advocate while in captivity." And this guy was successful as well. "Scharff's approach has been admiringly cited by top US interrogators, such as Ali Soufan"
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Those are still abusive relationships, that he established with his prisoners. Just not physically abusive.
tormeh 12y ago
What is the most effective? Anyway, that's really counter-intuitive. I mean, I guess I could deal with pain, but losing body parts, skin or eyes? I would talk pretty fast.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Torture has been shown to be a reasonably good (though not always effective) means of getting people to tell torturers things that they think the torturers want to hear -- whatever the tortured person thinks is most likely to lead to the present cessation of the torture. Its also been shown to be a fairly poor technique, compared to other alternatives, to get accurate, actionable information. As the Senate report itself notes, this was the conclusion of the CIA's own work on interrogation techniques prior to 9/11, which was disregarded in the aftermath of 9/11.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    The White House is apparently not taking a side in the debate over whether it works or not. Which frankly makes me think they believe it does. The easy political win is to say it doesn't, and they aren't taking it. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/542382617711370240 https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/542382617711370240 "Obama official: White House won’t take sides between CIA, which says interrogations worked, and Senate, which says they didn’t."
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
      Sure wish Obama could just grow a pair already.
- rqebmm 12y ago
  Basically, the most effective means is to create a rapport with the subject, and if treated with compassion and respect, eventually some will come around to their captor's side and reveal whatever information they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation-communication-strategies-and-key-personality-constructs-jessica-heuback/default.htm http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation...

codezero 12y ago

It depends on what you define as a prisoner, too.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I mean, we are surprised to find that threats are used? We are, if not surprised, rightfully offended that our government does not obey its own laws, which define and punish torture -- acts "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control", where "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is defined as: ---[quote]--- (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and ---[end quote]--- (18 USC Sec. 2340) (And its worth noting that this interpretation enshrined into law has often been criticized itself as an attempt to minimize the scope of US limitations on torture and for the government to shirk obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by limiting the understanding of torture to something much narrower than the international understanding underlying the convention, so that can enhanced the degree to which it is disturbing that having narrowed the definition of torture, the government still isn't serious about combatting it, or even just not actively engaging in it, under the narrowed definition.)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
blocktuw 12y ago
> Lack of heat at the facility likely contributed to the death of a detainee. Causing the death of a detainee is not a threat. Perhaps negligence which should have consequences for those who were responsible for this person while in their custody.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  It is if you have more than one detainee.

leroy_masochist 12y ago

I wouldn't say that any of these techniques are "basic/standard", and I used to work in the field. You can get plenty of information out of someone without laying a finger on them. In my opinion the question is the extent to which it's OK to play with people's psychology through isolation and misinformation, while still giving them 3 hots and a cot. The important thing to note here is that you can still damage people this way if you take it too far; solitary makes people go crazy especially when they're being fed false info about what's going on outside the walls. Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. We're not going to beat it out of them, but how far are we willing to go? Should they get the same rights and protections as suspects in the US judicial system? This is the conversation we should be having in my opinion.

charonn0 12y ago
> Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads. According to the report, "Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
mikeash 12y ago
"Then again, these guys did not get rolled up for signing too loud in church. They have valuable intel in their heads." Why does terrorism frighten people so much that they're willing to throw away basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty"? Honest question. I see comment after comment after comment in this thread that indicates the commenters are unbelievably frightened of terrorism, to the extent that they're willing to sanction anything, even acts that they admit are otherwise reprehensible, to prevent it. Why are apparently intelligent people so frightened of it?