Interrogation Rules: The Kos Twist
Posted on September 25, 2006
Given the daily hoopla on the new rules on interrogation and terrorist tribunals, it is not surprising that “Steven D” wrote an obviously disapproving post at Daily Kos.
Since yours truly has 8 years of experience as an Army interrogator, a triple digit record of real time interrogations in Somalia, and has extensively taught military interrogation to active duty soldiers (note: all opinions expressed in this post reflect only my personal opinion; official endorsement of any federal government agency involved with developing doctrine about, teaching, or conducting interrogations is not to be implied in any way, shape or form), allow me to throw my 2 cents in the arena of fake moralism that the debate on the subject has become (I’m not a lawyer, so don’t expect to read anything about tribunals or military commissions, which I know nothing about).
The crux of Steven D’s post seems to be that torture does not work as a means to get viable, actionable information. To buttress his claim, he uses several quotes culled from statements of former and active interrogators. Hey, if they say it, it has to be true, right? Well, it’s not that clear cut, if you actually have been in the business and know what is actually talked about.
First quote:
I conducted interrogation operations and training, and served as an interrogator near the front lines during Operation Desert Storm. When prisoners of high intelligence value were captured, they were brought to me immediately. I often just glared at them and in a stern voice asked their name, their rank, their unit affiliation, and then questions related to the intelligence collection mission. Direct questioning is usually effective.
The quotee is referring here to the first phase of a tactical interrogation, known as the approach; as its name indicates, it is basically the first direct, face-to-face contact the interrogator has with his subject, during which he assesses for and then uses techniques designed to break the source, i.e. get the source to talk (a note to all you people who shivered when you read the word “breaking” and immediately took it as further proof that snapping bones is an approach requirement: calm down, it’s not the case).
The problem I have with the use of this quote is that it is untrue in a situation like Iraq nowadays. Conducting interrogation operations in a situation like Desert Storm, which is referred to as a force-on-force confrontation (i.e. one nation’s military against another nation’s military) has legal and tactical implications that are radically different compared to the military-vs-insurgents situation the troops are facing today. When you interrogate Mohammed the Iraqi Army private, or Aziz the Republican Guard battalion commander, the only thing they are required to give their interrogator according to the Geneva Conventions is their name, rank, and serial number. The philosophy behind that is that in a force-on-force war, where the front lines are clearly defined, regardless of how fast they move, a POW’s status is very close to a kid who gets hit in a game of dodgeball (you know, the game kids played before some wussified pansies on the Left decided to ban it because it was supposedly too violent and destroyed the kid’s self esteem): you’re out, because you played by the generally accepted rules of warfare. If you didn’t play by the rules, then you get punished because you committed a war crime.At the end of the war, you get to go home. End of story.
Now, think about a situation where Aziz is a lowly insurgent, and Mohammed is an IED Making Cell commander. If they get arrested, this is the deal: they are Iraqi civilians, arrested in Iraq for crimes committed against other civilians or agents of the Iraqi government, and they therefore fall under Iraqi law. They have much more to loose, because Iraq’s new penal code includes the death penalty, and nope, they’re not afraid to use it. Heck, even if they were only subject to a maximum sentence of life in prison, all you need to do is watch “Midnight Express” to get a pretty good idea of what life in an Iraqi jail is all about; you tell me if you’d want to spend the rest of your life in those conditions. Like I said earlier they have much more to loose, which means that they won’t start spilling the beans unless you give them a good reason to. Hence the direct approach (here’s an example: “What insurgent organization are you a member of? – I’m a member of the Fallujah Brigade of Al-Qaeda in Iraq”) may have worked on a soldier who knew he was going to spend the rest of Desert Storm in a POW camp until he’s shipped home. Not so for an insurgent who is usually perfectly aware of what his fate may very well be if he admits to any guilt, regardless of the fact that the interrogator may glare at them and use a stern tone of voice.
Oh, one other thing: Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm were generally underfed, underequipped, undertrained and treated like crap by their officers. Once they mostly voluntarily surrendered, they were fed, housed, medically treated, and generally treated like human beings by the American troops. Their cooperation, in those conditions, was quasi guaranteed The insurgents, however, are a completely different breed: they are decently equipped and funded (muchas gracias, Iran), they are well organized, and they are ideologically brainwashed to the point where even if they are foreigners, they believe that this their fight, and that death, even if it is their own, is an honorable goal, and a lot of them are not afraid or ashamed to take women and children with them in the process.
So, Steven D, your first argument, namely that the direct approach works, just blew up in your face. Let’s see what the rest of your thesis looks like.
Second quote:
I know the techniques in the field manual work, and I know torture isn’t as effective. I was stationed in Europe almost all of my career and I did resistance-to-interrogation training for NATO forces. We simulated the sort of abuse they could expect should they fall into the hands of the Warsaw Pact. This treatment is quite similar to the sort of techniques described as the CIA’s “alternative interrogation procedures.” We invariably obtained more reliable information using our own techniques than we did using the abusive procedures. I cannot name one instance in which abuse was successful after standard interrogation techniques failed. When you abuse or degrade somebody, the reaction of the source is: “You’re putting ladies’ underwear on my head. [Expletive] you.” In the hands of a skilled and trained interrogator, you wouldn’t have to torture. Not a single military interrogator with whom I have communicated expressed anything but contempt for the idea that torture could be more effective than standard interrogation techniques.
Indeed, torture does not work. Anyone, including someone with no technical training in interrogation procedures and/or methodology, can get results from anyone who has been subjected to enough pain, be it physical or mental: they will tell their torturer anything they think he wants to hear to make the pain stop, regardless of how ridiculous the answer may be.By the same token, putting panties on the detainee’s head, even though it is a far cry from torture (as grotesquely twisted as it may be), wields nothing but a detainee’s hate for the one who has humiliated him. At best, the answer will be a concerted lie. At worst, there will be no response at all. The uselessness of torture is especially glaring in the framework of a force-on-force scenario, in which the collection of human intelligence is not as important as in an insurgent warfare situation; satellites can detect the movement of enemy troops, radio intercepts, and every military in the world has a very good idea of what doctrine and strategy every potential enemy will use on the battlefield. Force-on-force war is ugly, but it’s quite predictable.And make no mistake: Steven D has again, willingly or not, substituted the Cold War scenario to the insurgent context our troops are fighting in, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Still, this second quote is stunningly contradictory. One of the reasons brought forth by the Left for the stringent interrogation rules they advocate is the reciprocity principle. If we treat our detained enemies well, then our enemies will (maybe) treat our captive Soldiers decently as well, regardless of the fact that it has practically never happened at least since the Civil War. From the Japanese atrocities of World War II to the Hanoi Hilton, without forgetting the swollen and beaten faces of downed Coalition pilots paraded on Iraqi TV during Desert Storm and the North Korean brainwashing of the Fifties, we expect humane treatment so much the military has schools to train its personnel on how to resist abuse that will supposedly never happen. Does this make any sense to anyone out there? Good, it shouldn’t. Me so sorry, Steven D.
What I saw firsthand as an interrogator and, later, as a JAG in Iraq in 2003 working on detainee issues, has left me with a strong belief that torture is counterproductive. What has proven effective in interrogation, time and again, regardless of what culture the detainee is from, is building a positive relationship with an individual. Americans really want their soldiers to not only come home, but come home with honor. I would challenge the current administration to come up with one example where torture in interrogation has produced actionable intelligence that saved American lives in the United States.
Building a positive relationship? Whaaaaaat? The basics of interrogation dictate that the interrogator appear as a figure of authority, indeed the only figure of authority, the one who will determine the detainee’s future based on full cooperation or not. To do this, you basically have to appear as a demanding, uncompromising character who will not tolerate lies or excuses. Painting the possibility of a very bleak future for the detainee if he does not cooperate cannot possibly include the concept of making buddy-buddy.
And as far as torture yielding results, or not yielding results, as Steven D would stipulate, I’ll just leave you a couple of minutes to read and listen to this. To be completely honest, this is especially hard hitting when you consider the broad scope of what the left considers to be torture (to include slamming your fist on the table or yelling at the detainee: politically correct war brought to you by those who consider spanking your child emotional and physical abuse).
Let me close this post by making this last point: we will never get the upper hand in Iraq if we refuse to get our hands somewhat dirty. No beating with hoses or electrical shocks, mind you, that is over the line. But sleep deprivation, temperature changes, mind games, methods of that ilk are a necessity. We don’t have to like it. We should not like it. But right there in Iraq right now, we simply need it. Any of that fancy humanism will never overshadow the ugliness of war and the barbarism of our enemy. What about putting Iraq in a situation where these methods will no longer be needed? Then let’s beat the bastards without forgetting who we are, and that we have done what needed to be done not because we are soulless monsters, but because the war we are fighting demands it. And when those who did what they had to do come home, let us honor them not for what they did, but for having the true courage of doing what the wallflowers shirked at doing themselves and taking that load off their ungrateful shoulders. That is indeed true sacrifice.
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “Interrogation Rules: The Kos Twist”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Steven D wrote:
‘I did resistance-to-interrogation training for NATO forces. We simulated the sort of abuse they could expect should they fall into the hands of the Warsaw Pact. This treatment is quite similar to the sort of techniques described as the CIA’s “alternative interrogation procedures.”’
If the methods used by the CIA do not work then why would you train someone to resist them?
Excellent post! Thanks!