Ask A Former Army Interrogator

[Commodore]

Do your kids ever get away with anything? Have you interrogation skills allowed you to stand a chance in an argument with your wife?

My daughter is only 9 months old, so she gets away with everything, lol. As for my wife, my interrogation skills do help a lot. They allow me to confuse the issue so much that she just gets frustrated and gives up.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes it helps. An interrogator that has been doing it for 10 or 20 years can extract information from just about anyone. Interrogators like that get the big assignments like interrogating Saddam or Osama if he had been captured.

That's a bit scary. He who fights monsters…

As for emotional scarring, I guess it's possible. I find myself unable to believe anything anyone tells me unless I can verify what they say. I also sometimes start questioning people as if I am interrogating them during normal conversations. In my opinion, the greatest effect the job has on someone is that it becomes extremely difficult to "turn it off".

Sucks, man. reminds me of two people I met:
-one was a call-center worker who'd answer the phone every time with 'How may I help you?' or a similar phrase.
-another was a retired policeman who just couldn't help but conduct a near-interrogation on anyone around. Didn't help that he had a Doberman.

Do your kids ever get away with anything? Have you interrogation skills allowed you to stand a chance in an argument with your wife?

My daughter is only 9 months old, so she gets away with everything, lol. As for my wife, my interrogation skills do help a lot. They allow me to confuse the issue so much that she just gets frustrated and gives up.

A man who can win an argument against his wife? Teach us, O Great One!

 

[Commodore]

That's a bit scary. He who fights monsters…

Well the thing to remember about interrogations is that it's all about rapport. You establish strong rapport with your subject and you'll have them eating out of your hand.

I'll point to the interrogation of Saddam. His interrogator had built such strong rapport with Saddam that when Saddam went on a hunger strike, his interrogator acted like he was upset with Saddam for it and didn't talk to him for a few days. Saddam then ended his hunger strike because he didn't want his interrogator to be upset with him. This is because the interrogator made Saddam think that they were actually becoming friends.

Of course negative rapport can work sometimes also. It all depends on the situation and the subject.

Sucks, man. reminds me of two people I met:
-one was a call-center worker who'd answer the phone every time with 'How may I help you?' or a similar phrase.
-another was a retired policeman who just couldn't help but conduct a near-interrogation on anyone around. Didn't help that he had a Doberman.

Yeah, it does kinda suck when you become so absorbed in your work that it sort of becomes your lifestyle.

A man who can win an argument against his wife? Teach us, O Great One!

Give me about 3 months of your time and I can teach you the basics.

BTW, interrogation skills also come in handy while trying to pick up girls. In fact I employed those skills on the woman who is now my wife.

 

[Defiant47]

BTW, interrogation skills also come in handy while trying to pick up girls. In fact I employed those skills on the woman who is now my wife.

That's because mental manipulation is necessary to building attraction with most girls. You either play the game, or you agree to get shot down and rejected every time you try.

 

[mayor]

Yes, but we call it something different. The funny thing is I can tell you we use it, but I can't tell you what we call it because that's classified. You'd be surprised how effective it is too. Although if the subject has had training in interrogation resistance, they will probably see right through it.

Or those who have seen the basic policeseries


Anyway, I had a question while I was reading the last few posts.... I'll get back to that

EDIT; right, I remember. How long have you been an interrogator? what is the average time an interrogator "lasts"

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Has it ever happened that being nice to the person has worked better than being mean?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I never engaged in it. What my Iraqi counterparts did while I took a bathroom break however, is another story.

Is there really any difference if the US military abused or tortured people or used proxies to do so?

And this thread has done much to reaffirm a recent video posted by Monsterzuma: Don't talk to police

 

[Commodore]

Or those who have seen the basic policeseries


Anyway, I had a question while I was reading the last few posts.... I'll get back to that

EDIT; right, I remember. How long have you been an interrogator? what is the average time an interrogator "lasts"

Interrogators usually don't last long in the military. This is because they either get snatched up by another government agency or they go use their skills in the private sector. Of course some also, just get tired of it and stop doing it.

Has it ever happened that being nice to the person has worked better than being mean?

Of course. In fact, being nice works more than being mean. Like I said early in the thread, one of the key aspects of interrogation is to make the subject feel like you are his only friend and only hope of seeing freedom again. Doing this will make the subject trust you and want to confide in you. Being mean is usually reserved for those who just flat out don't respond to the nice methods.

Is there really any difference if the US military abused or tortured people or used proxies to do so?

Objectively? No there is no difference. It gave me a plausible defense though in the event of an investigation. Since I never specifically ordered it and they would do it when I was out of the room, I could easily claim that they engaged in such methods without my knowledge or approval. I'm not proud of having to be so underhanded, but it helped complete my unit's mission and part of our Soldier's Creed is "I will always place the mission first".

You would also be surprised at what methods the Geneva Conventions allow. Let's just say the Geneva Conventions doesn't protect detainees as much as you would think.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You would also be surprised at what methods the Geneva Conventions allow. Let's just say the Geneva Conventions doesn't protect detainees as much as you would think.

Oh, I think I understand quite well how some have tried to interpret the Geneva Conventions, as well as federal and international law.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, I think I understand quite well how some have tried to interpret the Geneva Conventions, as well as federal and international law.

But it's not interpretation, it's what they actually say. For example, the only things the Geneva Conventions say we absolutely have to give a detainee are: 4 hours of continuous sleep in a 24 hour period, 1 hour of exercise (exercise being defined as walking around) in a 24 hour period, edible food and drinkable water, proper medical care for any illness or injury they sustain, and protection from harm.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is only one aspect of the Geneva Conventions:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

( a ) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

( b ) Taking of hostages;

( c ) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

( d ) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

And I would contend that doesn't give anybody the right to hang people by their limbs, place them in "stress positions" for extended periods of time, waterboard them, or even subject them to mental stress, much less turn their backs while they are beaten and tortured by "allies".

In particular, I am adamantly opposed to the Bush administration's interpretation of these statutes.

"If we are entitled to kill people, we must be entitled to injure them." Ex-Attorney General John Yoo

Not to mention the Geneva Conventions aren't the only pertinent governing laws. This is one example:

UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Signatures to the UN Convention against Torture

States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture

...

United States of America

Apparently, the primary reason the US has not ratified it is because they do not "agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture". But since we are a signatory, I do believe that it is legally binding according to the Constitution.

 

[Aroddo]

What? No one asks about how he felt about the Guantanamo Bay mass tortures? Or how his CIA colleagues waterboarded Abu Zubaydah over 80 times?

Doesn't it bother you that since Bush US-'Interrogation' is just an euphemism for torture?

Did the percentage of tortured or executed US-POWs increase as a result of that negative publicity?

Do you even care if one of your POWs gets tortured by your guys or are you content to say that it's not your business what happens during your bathroom breaks?

 

[Commodore]

What? No one asks about how he felt about the Guantanamo Bay mass tortures? Or how his CIA colleagues waterboarded Abu Zubaydah over 80 times?

The Guantanamo Bay incidents were a dark chapter for the US intelligence community in my opinion. Not only did those interrogators sacrifice their principles and a piece of their humanity, they also didn't even get any reliable intelligence from the detainees. Guantanamo Bay was a massive intelligence collection failure in my opinion.

As for the CIA, ugh. If I had to describe the CIA in a single word, it would be incompetent. If you want me to elaborate further I will, but I'm kinda pressed for time right now.

Doesn't it bother you that since Bush US-'Interrogation' is just an euphemism for torture?

It does, because an interrogation is so much more complex than how his administration or Hollywood movies portray them to be. Plus, torture has been proven time and time again to not produce reliable or accurate intelligence.

Did the percentage of tortured or executed US-POWs increase as a result of that negative publicity?

Incidents perpetrated by interrogators acutally dropped significantly since training doctrine was completely revised after the Abu Ghraib incident. The funny thing about Abu Ghraib though, is that it wasn't interrogators who perpetrated those offenses, it was the MPs who were guarding the detainees. Which leads me to my next point: The offenses you speak of are usually perpetrated by MPs and the interrogators are usually trying to keep the MPs under control.

I personally would tell the MP who escorted the detainee to wait outside during all my interrogations, because I found them to be more of a hinderance than a help.

Do you even care if one of your POWs gets tortured by your guys or are you content to say that it's not your business what happens during your bathroom breaks?

Yes I care. I would never let an American soldier torture a detainee. As for the turning my back while the Iraqis did it: I would use that as an attempt to build rapport with the subject. Basically I leave the room, the Iraqi soldiers do what they do, I come back and put a stop to it. All of a sudden the subject sees me as a "savior" of sorts and almost instantly becomes willing to cooperate with me. Like I said, I'm not proud of having to use tactics like that, but my unit had a mission to complete and they were relying on the information I collected to complete that mission.

I admit some of the things I let happen were ugly, which is why I really don't talk about them to anyone. This thread is the first time I've opened up about this stuff. I really am not proud of what I did. So much so that while I was still in the Army, if a civilian thanked me for my service and called me a hero, I would politely ask they not call me a hero. That's because I just don't feel like one. I did what I had to do, but my actions were far from heroic.

 

[Takhisis]

You'd never let an American soldier torture a detainee… but you'd let foreign operatives do it? Harsh.

 

[Aroddo]

As for the CIA, ugh. If I had to describe the CIA in a single word, it would be incompetent. If you want me to elaborate further I will, but I'm kinda pressed for time right now.

Sure, go ahead when you find the time. Because hollywood led us to believe that the CIA is awesome. Unless you happened to watch Burn After Reading, that is.

It does, because an interrogation is so much more complex than how his administration or Hollywood movies portray them to be. Plus, torture has been proven time and time again to not produce reliable or accurate intelligence.

So, how many points for Jack Bauer? By the way, did you get the impression that your movies and TV shows tend to not just glorify violence but torture, too?

Which leads me to my next point: The offenses you speak of are usually perpetrated by MPs and the interrogators are usually trying to keep the MPs under control.
I personally would tell the MP who escorted the detainee to wait outside during all my interrogations, because I found them to be more of a hinderance than a help.

Em ... what are the selection criteria for MPs, btw.? "Too sadistic for frontline duty?". You make them sound like ... er ... cops. not the good cops. the ones where you need the national guard to keep them from shooting civilians.

I admit some of the things I let happen were ugly, which is why I really don't talk about them to anyone. This thread is the first time I've opened up about this stuff. I really am not proud of what I did. So much so that while I was still in the Army, if a civilian thanked me for my service and called me a hero, I would politely ask they not call me a hero. That's because I just don't feel like one. I did what I had to do, but my actions were far from heroic.

Thank you for your answer. I believe you when you say that you tried to be as humane as you could in an inhumane environment.

On a sidenote: What is your government trying to do with their mistreatment of Bradley Manning? And do you think that their methods are effective for what you assume their goal is?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Is there a "good soldier/bad soldier" tactic?

 

[madtemplar0]

My cousin's becoming an officer, and ships to boot camp sometime soon. Is your position a path open to him? I wouldn't mind a Spook in the family.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Do you play good cop bad cop?

Well I can assure you it works a treat when selling cars

 

[Commodore]

Sure, go ahead when you find the time. Because hollywood led us to believe that the CIA is awesome. Unless you happened to watch Burn After Reading, that is.

Well, the CIA's collection methods are not thorough and very sloppy. This is evidenced in their reports which are poorly written, hard to understand, and just feel incomplete. Hell, I even read one of their reports in whichthey accidentally put their source's name in the report. This is a HUGE no-no in the intelligence community. They also get too complacent with their non-detainee sources and stop vetting them after a while. Now I don't know what they teach them, but I was always taught that you never stop assessing and vetting your sources, no matter how trustworthy they become.

I think the problem with the CIA is that they have fallen in love with their own legend, so to speak.

So, how many points for Jack Bauer? By the way, did you get the impression that your movies and TV shows tend to not just glorify violence but torture, too?

Jack Bauer get zero points. In real life, he would actually be a horrible interrogator. And I wouldn't say TV and movies glorify torture, but they definitely make it seem a lot more effective than it really is. What people don't realize is that when someone is tortured, they will say anything just to make the pain stop. That is why you cannot trust the reliability of the intelligence gained through torture.

Em ... what are the selection criteria for MPs, btw.? "Too sadistic for frontline duty?". You make them sound like ... er ... cops. not the good cops. the ones where you need the national guard to keep them from shooting civilians.

I don't know what their selection requirements are, but I don't think that is the problem. I think the behavior problems the MPs have are learned during their training. If I could, I would completely revise their training doctrine.

Thank you for your answer. I believe you when you say that you tried to be as humane as you could in an inhumane environment.

On a sidenote: What is your government trying to do with their mistreatment of Bradley Manning? And do you think that their methods are effective for what you assume their goal is?

I think Bradley Manning is being treated the way he is simply because he is viewed as a traitor for what he did. Unfortunately, that means noone is really going to stand in the way of it.

Is there a "good soldier/bad soldier" tactic?

Yes, but the name of it is classified. It's so stupid that I can tell you we use the tactic but I can't tell you the name of it.

My cousin's becoming an officer, and ships to boot camp sometime soon. Is your position a path open to him? I wouldn't mind a Spook in the family.

Not really. The way officers work in the Army, is they are assigned to a "branch" such as infantry, artillery, supply, etc. So your cousin could become an Intelligence officer and become the PL of a HUMINT platoon. If that happened he would provide oversight for interrogations and source operations, but he would never actually perform them.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What people don't realize is that when someone is tortured, they will say anything just to make the pain stop. That is why you cannot trust the reliability of the intelligence gained through torture.

Funny thing is that my IQ is a little lower than average (it's about 90 last time I got it "properly" tested) and I figured that out when I was something like 12 or 13. I thought "well if you're being hanged upside down and set on fire and stuff, you're going to say you did it just so they will stop even if you did not do it."