Ask A Former Army Interrogator

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."

Exactly, which is great if all you want is a scapegoat for some crime. But it's not very good when you are trying to collect intelligence that is supposed to save lives.
 
Exactly, which is great if all you want is a scapegoat for some crime. But it's not very good when you are trying to collect intelligence that is supposed to save lives.

I suspect back in the Bad Old Days when population centers were *very* small and everybody knew who did what using torture to force a confession was actually fairly reliable. Plus it's quick and dramatic, and so was probably often favored for *exactly* the same reasons TV shows and movies like it.

But yeah... once you get past the village stage it's just for scapegoating. And on a massive scale it's hugely counterproductive. IIRC even the CIA had to admit they were getting too many false leads. (Though it may have just been the FBI complaining about the CIA.)

Re: Good solider/bad soldier -

The "Mutt and Jeff" technique isn't in the classified section. (At least as of the 2006 field manuals, which are online.)

If there's an additional, secret, name for it... well, good for the Army. After a century of generally boring or derivative names for things I say "More power too 'em."
 
I suspect back in the Bad Old Days when population centers were *very* small and everybody knew who did what using torture to force a confession was actually fairly reliable. Plus it's quick and dramatic, and so was probably often favored for *exactly* the same reasons TV shows and movies like it.

But yeah... once you get past the village stage it's just for scapegoating. And on a massive scale it's hugely counterproductive. IIRC even the CIA had to admit they were getting too many false leads. (Though it may have just been the FBI complaining about the CIA.)

Re: Good solider/bad soldier -

The "Mutt and Jeff" technique isn't in the classified section. (At least as of the 2006 field manuals, which are online.)

If there's an additional, secret, name for it... well, good for the Army. After a century of generally boring or derivative names for things I say "More power too 'em."

Ugh, I hate that our manuals are available online for anyone to download. I really believe that lowers the effectiveness of our techniques. I mean our techniques get their power from the fact that the subject is not supposed to know what we are doing. If they know that we are basically playing games with them, then those techniques lose all of their effectiveness.

And yes, creativity in naming is not something in abundance in the military.
 
Ugh, I hate that our manuals are available online for anyone to download. I really believe that lowers the effectiveness of our techniques. I mean our techniques get their power from the fact that the subject is not supposed to know what we are doing. If they know that we are basically playing games with them, then those techniques lose all of their effectiveness.

And yes, creativity in naming is not something in abundance in the military.


What manual? That manual? :
http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Army-Intelligence-Interrogation-Handbook/dp/1592287174
Don't be so dismayed. Your whole government outsourced large part of their intelligence work to private companies that happily work for foreign powers, too.
Your military secrets are not stolen by spies or sold by deserters ... they are auctioned on ebay.

Speaking of public domain secret documents: Have you read the "interrogation" section of the CIA School of the Americas manual?
Sorry mate, but your job doesn't get good publicity outside of hollywood. :(
 
You're not a very good interrogator if we are the ones asking you questions.
 
Have you ever had a detainee with a certain sexual peccadillo , end result being they liked tough interrogation / torture and witheld info in the hope of it continuing ? ( you have not been involved in torture I know , but maybe you aware of the phenomenon )
 
You're not a very good interrogator if we are the ones asking you questions.

How do you know he's not creating a bond with us? It might be his tactic, so that we're going to trust him and spill all our secrets :shifty:
 
How do you know he's not creating a bond with us? It might be his tactic, so that we're going to trust him and spill all our secrets :shifty:

I'm not sure I have any secrets that the government really cares about.
 
How do you know he's not creating a bond with us? It might be his tactic, so that we're going to trust him and spill all our secrets :shifty:
Well I for one will never tell him which part of the garden I buried the bodies in.
 
Ugh, I hate that our manuals are available online for anyone to download. I really believe that lowers the effectiveness of our techniques.

I agree. Though even if it wasn't in the AFM it's still "out there."

Which makes me wonder: How often did interrogate someone who seemed in some significant way successfully trained to resist? I'll be surprised if it was often at all.
 
Ugh, I hate that our manuals are available online for anyone to download. I really believe that lowers the effectiveness of our techniques. I mean our techniques get their power from the fact that the subject is not supposed to know what we are doing. If they know that we are basically playing games with them, then those techniques lose all of their effectiveness.
Is there any sort of anti-interrogation training?
Well I for one will never tell him which part of the garden I buried the bodies in.
Searching the garden had never occurred to us before. I tell you, Commodore, we should use this technique more often.




Crap I just posted that.
 
Back
Top Bottom