FBI Wants To "Advance the Science of Interrogation"

coondoggie writes "From deep in the Department of Creepy today I give this item: The FBI this week put out a call for new research 'to advance the science and practice of intelligence interviewing and interrogation.' The part of the FBI that is requesting the new research isn't out in the public light very often: the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which according to the FBI was chartered in 2009 by the National Security Council and includes members of the CIA and Department of Defense, to 'deploy the nation's best available interrogation resources against detainees identified as having information regarding terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.'"

Comments

This is one area we've regressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

They had it pretty much perfected during the Inquisition. We've slid backwards since then.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[qbzzt]

Torture is a well known technique, shown to be effective many times in history. They're trying to find other ways to interrogate people.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[shentino]

For me, torture is questionable simply on 5th amendment grounds, let alone humanitarian complications.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[bsane]

Torture is a good way to get people to say what you want them to say. The FBI should be good at finding out what they know- hopefully this is a step towards that. From all accounts they were very good at it pre-war on terror, and they didn't need to resort to water boarding.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[qbzzt]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think the fifth amendment applies to criminal cases, not to military intelligence gathering.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Auroch]

So, where do I go to get my MA in interrogation? Or is it an M.Sc? I'm not talking about an MBA - that's self-inflicted torture.

Also, how long until universities are diluting the techniques, and offering it as an undergraduate degree?

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[PopeRatzo]

Torture is a well known technique, shown to be effective many times in history.

Effective, but not for getting information on which to act. It's very effective for scaring the hell out of the tortured and creating at least one more generation of enemies.

People don't forget when you torture their family members. And you know what? I think I would rather have a religious fanatic as an enemy than someone who has sworn a blood oath to avenge the death of his father. A religious fanatic, after all, is irrational by definition. There is no one more rational than someone who has grown up with the knowledge that you are the guy who tortured his father. He's got all those adolescent years to think about how to kill you, and I can tell you from personal experience that adolescence is a great time for coming up with creative ways to kill people.

I've spent a fair amount of time in the Balkans, in Serbia, Bosnia, etc. And I can tell you based on observation that when someone gets tortured, you create much worse trouble.

And then, there's what torture does to the people who torture. Assuming there's a time when the war ends, these are not people who are going to go home and teach high school.

Torture is ineffective and diminishes the society that condones torture. I still think that the stories that came out last decade are a big part of why American society is so psychotic today. And if someone wants to disagree with me that American society is psychotic, step right up.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Research has shown that people under torture become prone to fantasy, and are no longer able to distinguish between memory and imagination.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[elucido]

Torture is a well known technique, shown to be effective many times in history. They're trying to find other ways to interrogate people.

They already have technology and they already can use torture so what other ways are there that they don't have and use?

Who are these "hard" targets that don't already break under torture or the current interrogation methods? My guess is they know torture is harmful to the target of the interrogation and they want to develop some methods which don't physically or psychologically destroy the person being interrogated. This makes sense if they could pull it off but given their track record it will probably be something horrific.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[shentino]

My point still stands...if you are interrogated for information that, if revealed, would tend to incriminate you, the 5th amendment applies.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[qbzzt]

Only if admissible in court. When the interrogation is for a military objective (for example, Osama bin Laden's location), I don't think anybody is overly concerned about eventual trial. It is more important to win the war.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[shentino]

Which is why they grant immunity.

And please, "winning the war" being used as an excuse to undermine one's civil rights is complete bullshit. Particularly in a war of aggression that we started in the first place.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS and stay out of countries that (rightfully) hate us.

Yeah i know. Totally insane... Lets go kill and torture more brown people who don't agree with us.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Torture is a well known technique, shown to be effective many times in history."

Indeed. During the Middle Ages tens of thousands of people have confessed to being witches.
Very effective.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Frangible]

Indeed, and this is something we can progress in without recreating incidents that gave us little intelligence but cost us a great deal of goodwill.

An example of the more recent advances in interrogation used by the US -- still actively taught today, actually -- came from studying how American POWs in WWII were interrogated by the Luftwaffe's master interrogator, Hanns Joachim Scharff. Sort of like the Erwin Rommel of interrogation.

I'm sure the image that most people have about Germans interrogating US POWs in WWII is like an ill-tempered Jack Bauer, but that wasn't the case at all, at least for Scharff.

Scharff's techniques were purely psychological, and did not rely on causing physical or (much) psychological distress. I'll try to briefly summarize what I recall reading quite a while ago. Scharff would treat prisoners well, and engage them in conversation, even giving them leave to walk with him outside the base. He would take note of what they said, at first without prying that much, and then in later conversation where they felt more comfortable around him, interject those things learned earlier in ways that the prisoner would elaborate on a topic that they would not normally divulge, perhaps even under torture... usually without even realizing they had given him the intel he wanted.

It required extreme attention to detail, patience, interpersonal skills, and getting to know and understand who he was interrogating. Much more difficult than torture, but it produced consistently good results.

I don't know what advances can be made in interrogation in the future, but as Hanns Scharff proved, they need not all be brutal to be effective.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[jbeaupre]

From the accounts I've heard, the FBI aren't big supporters of torture. In the early days of interrogating prisoners from Afghanistan, there were FBI agents involved. CIA contractors asked for permission to get rough, against FBI recommendations and experience. When permission was granted, the FBI yanked their people from the interrogations. Things went steadily downhill after that.

At least that's what I've read and heard. If someone can clarify or correct this, I'd appreciate it.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[canadian_right]

As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.

The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[cold fjord]

It's funny, but I don't recall that the NKVD, KGB, SMERSH, or other secret police organs of Soviet Power in the USSR worried about blood feuds from torture, or any of that. They simply tortured and killed in staggering numbers.

The KGB prison in Vilnius at The Museum of Genocide Victims

solitary confinement cell, KGB style.

Surprise!

And the Gulags?

What Were Their Crimes? Living in the Gulag Stalin World - Lithuania

The Great Terror: A Reassessment

- - - - -

Torture is ineffective and diminishes the society that condones torture. I still think that the stories that came out last decade are a big part of why American society is so psychotic today.

Some small segments of American society did become unhinged, yes, but not anything close to all of American society.

Keep in perspective that: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA The most recent of which was about 9 years ago.

Many people are also mistaken regarding what went on at Abu Ghraib. The Army put a stop to abuse by a handful of rogue soldiers who were abusing prisoners, court martialed them, and sent them to jail. All the news media really did was report the news of the Army investigation, and what had gone on. Of course it is more profitable, poltically and financially, to spin dark conspiracy theories when the reality is closer to Jackass: The Movie.

Iraq abuse photos were `just for fun'

Private Lynndie England, the woman who has become the emblem of the US' shame over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, on Tuesday showed little expression aside from an occasional nervous giggle at a hearing to determine whether she should face the full weight of a court martial.

When first confronted with pictures of her gloating over naked and cowering Iraqi prisoners, England had shown no alarm, telling the officer who led the investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq: "It was just for fun."

That lack of comprehension returned to haunt her yesterday as the prevailing view of the US military -- that England and the handful of other lowly reservists charged in the abuse were rogue soldiers -- began to emerge more fully.

"They didn't think it was that serious. They were just joking around and having some fun during the night shift," Chief Warrant Officer Paul Arthur told the court.

He added later: "From the get-go, it was jokes and frustration." . . . .

If England is convicted on all 19 charges, she could face 38 years in the brig. Some 25 witnesses are to appear including Specialist Joseph Darby, the soldier who first came forward about the abuse, and Specialist Jeremy Sivitz, who was granted relative leniency for cooperating with the investigation.
Much of the prosecution's evidence is from photographs, with more than 280 images of abuse of detainees, . . . The images first came to the attention of the authorities last January.

Arthur, a member of the military CID, was at Abu Ghraib when a soldier in England's military police

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[demachina]

Your interpretation of what happened at Abu Ghraib is flawed at best. It is true that the enlisted people probably did do some things on their own initiative and "for fun" but most of the torture practiced there was doctrine being pushed from the White House and Pentagon. It was happening in Gitmo and Afghanistan too which completely defeats your contention that it was just a few rogue enlisted people in Iraq.

The use of attack dogs and sexual humiliation were part of Pentagon and CIA directed interrogation techniques. It is fairly predictable that when you order low paid, untrained, poorly supervised, enlisted people, working in a hell hole, to torture and humiliate prisoners in certain ways that they would quickly lose their moral compass and start engaging in progressively more abusive forms of torture and humiliation until you reach the photos from Abu Ghraib. Only way for this abuse to not happen would be to either not allow any of it in the first place which should have been the case or failing that to only have highly trained, disciplined people under strict chain of command doing it who knew exactly where the lines were that they could approach but not cross.

There were officers who were directing many of the abusive practices at Abu Ghraib who got off scott free because they were doing what they were ordered to do. The Army had to nail someone once the photos hit the news and nailing expendable enlisted soldiers was incredibly easy.

Officers usually dont take these falls unless they've done something to go off the reservation and to invite the wrath of their superiors like shoot their mouth off to the press. As long as they keep quite and are doing what they were ordered to do they can almost literally get away with murder.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[dwillden]

Only to US citizens or aliens located within the confines of the US and it's territories. Nobody else gets the 5th Amendment, it isn't part of the UN Charter.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[dwillden]

Sure because our law enforcement agencies NEVER need to interrogate our own civilians as part of criminal investigations. This is not about torture. It's about finding ways to make interrogation more effective. Which, contrary to your statement, usually leads to moving us further away from the realm of torture, because it has been clearly demonstrated that a tortured confession is highly suspect. And such a statement will never be admissible in court.

Note the groups involved. Yes the CIA and the DOD are there, but so is the FBI. In fact the FBI has the greatest need to not be associated with torture as their interrogatees are most likely to end up in front of a judge. And it's well known that most judges will toss a case where torture was used to coerce a confession. The FBI spends a lot of money investigating crimes, they don't want their cases walking out the door because the judge didn't like the techniques used. So they want to find the most effective, non-torture based methods possible.

We should be cheering this research because the more effective interrogation is, the less tempting torture becomes. If we know we can get a legit confession quickly through effective interrogation techniques, then there is no need to risk using torture just because it might get a coerced confession faster.

There is a difference between interrogation and torture, they are not synonyms.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[gl4ss]

war on terror, war on the devil, war on teen pregnancies, war on drugs, war on jaywalking...there's a war on everything always. that's the problem with that.

if the interrogation is for a military objective you don't even need 5th amendment. international rules apply, you pretty much only need to state your id and get treated as POW.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Schmorgluck]

I looked up about Hanns Scharff. It came to no surprise for me that he worked for the Luftwaffe instead of, say, the SS.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[aaaaaaargh!]

While we're at it, we should also mention MI6's method for high-valued prisoners. They rented a villa as accommodation for German POWs. It appeared to be an improvised makeshift housing, but was very luxurious. The Germans were mostly left alone, playing pool billiard and drinking scotch, and soon got rather bored. They even received an English newspaper. However, the newspaper was fake and reported great successes of English troops. The German officers became so concerned over the bad news that they started discussing them amongst themselves, trying to discern propaganda from reality and so on. Of course, the whole house was bugged and they freely gave away information that they would likely have kept to themselves even under torture.

I guess nowadays this wouldn't work, but it's nice to know that it seems to have worked.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[ultranova]

It's funny, but I don't recall that the NKVD, KGB, SMERSH, or other secret police organs of Soviet Power in the USSR worried about blood feuds from torture, or any of that. They simply tortured and killed in staggering numbers.

And by doing so they turned pretty much everyone against the state, thus leading to the fall of the Soviet Union. So maybe they should had worried about blood feuds a bit more after all.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Sique]

Your information is more than 250 years outdated. Back in 1631, the german inquisitor Friedrich Spee published the Cautio Criminalis, in which he argued, that torture does not reveal truth, but is nothing than a reinforcement of the torturer's prejudices.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[qbzzt]

Not if you belong to an organization that doesn't follow the Geneva Convention itself.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[swalve]

So much for rights that are inalienable...

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[pipy]

Mod parent up.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Hatta]

Effective at what exactly? Effective at getting actionable intelligence? Never. Effective at getting the victim to say whatever it is you want to hear? Certainly.

The moment someone suggests torture it's clear they don't give one shit about the truth or keeping anyone safe. All they care about is their own power.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Hatta]

Keep in perspective that: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA The most recent of which was about 9 years ago.

It's been 9 years, and still none of the torturers have been tried for their crimes.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[swalve]

That just seems like common sense to me. People are generally going to be more truthful when they aren't under stress. Unfortunately, there is such a culture of seething hate and disgust for "bad guys" in law enforcement these days that it would be very hard to train people to do this.

It reminds me of an investigative technique (whose name I'm forgetting, but most detectives go to a class on it) where they are trained to apply levels of stress and ignorance onto subjects to try to determine a general idea of guilt/suspicion. A non guilty person will react pretty predictably- the more ignorant an investigator gets, a non-guilty subject will start to react with indignation. "Why did you steal that bracelet?" = "I didn't steal the bracelet!" and then "Were you going to pawn it for drug money?" = "What the fuck is the matter with you?" Whereas a more guilty subject will react differently. Evasion, twisting, inappropriate outbursts, etc. "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "Fuck you, pig!" and "Do you know why we arrested you?" = "I sure didn't steal any bracelets."

There is also a thing that lots of people do when they are lying, which is to not quite answer the question directly, or to answer with reservations so that they aren't technically lying. "Do you know what happened to the bracelet?" "There is a bracelet missing?" "Yes, do you know what happened to it?" "What bracelet are you talking about?" "The one missing from the bureau." "If that bracelet is missing, I don't know where it is right now." "But did you take it?" "I don't think I've taken any bracelets." "Answer the question." "I'm at work every day between 9-5, how could I take it?" "You could have taken it any other time." "Not my problem if people don't keep track of their stuff." "DID YOU TAKE THE BRACELET?" "What would I do with a bracelet?" And so on.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[heathen_01]

Exactly. Research has shown that people under torture become prone to fantasy, and are no longer able to distinguish between memory and imagination.

People already can't distinguish between memory and imagination. No need to bring torture into the picture.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[PopeRatzo]

Please cite your sources. I happen to know the officers from whom such orders would have come and they have unequivocably denied every giving such orders.

To be fair, those American officers can be a little squeamish about torture, so they like to out-source it whenever possible to people who are really good at it.

See: Taxi to the Dark Side

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[daem0n1x]

Speak for yourself. Hey, everyone gets off the way he likes better!

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[gl4ss]

Not if you belong to an organization that doesn't follow the Geneva Convention itself.

then it's not "really" war is it? funnily enough not adhering to those rules doesn't give everyone the right to do everything they want to you. case in point, if you commit war crimes you're still entitled to being accused in court. raping rapists is still rape.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[hey!]

In a way it's worse than if they actually gave specific orders. They gave vague orders to enlisted personnel not trained to carry out those duties. As GP points out, the result was predictable. The immediate effect was the same as giving an illegal order, but allowed the officers to escape responsibility for the consequences.

All you have to know is that officers running the prison allowed falsified reports to be filed on the death of prisoners being tortured. That shows that they at least suspected that the way they were running the prison was illegal, and they didn't want anyone else to know.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[0111 1110]

It seems like those 'techniques' are mostly just assumptions about what a guilty person would say. An intelligent suspect will not answer any questions period. Whether guilty or not. Not even with their attorney present. Even if torture is used the best thing to do is just to STFU. Even if you are innocent. And I'm not only talking about the 5th amendment and suspects in the US.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[UdoKeir]

Army Intelligence personnel were photographed engaging in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib along with the grunts that were convicted. Those officers have never been identified or charged. Probably because they were also following orders, but had the good sense to get those orders in writing.

Here's your citation. Can you name the personnel in the photograph?

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg060504a.htm

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[drfourier]

The FBI employs a technique of rapport-building for its subjects, which they have demonstrated to produce the most reliable intelligence. It was used on KSM and Saddam Hussein - for KSM, though, note that the CIA had involvement (his detention was around the same time as the standoff between the CIA and FBI over the treatment and interrogation of detainees).

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[mdielmann]

Also, the Russian underworld has a bit of a reputation for being quite thorough when it comes to retaliations, which would fit the GPP's assertions of the behaviour of someone living under that kind of regime for a couple generations.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[dwillden]

The inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And are not relevant to this discussion.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in determining any rights. It was the declaration of independence from the British Empire, that's it. It wasn't until 13 years later that the Constitution was written and the country was formally established.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[deadweight]

Torture is *perfect* for Soviet show trials. Everyone will confess to anything and everything and implicate everyone they know. If you actually want to find out something you DON'T know, not so much.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[deadweight]

Correct. The FBI was horrified at the amateurish, brutal, and useless idiocy from the CIA. Read all about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Banners-Against-al-Qaeda/dp/0393079422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334337260&sr=8-1

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[chameleon3]

the point of this "Science of Interrogation" is exactly that-- using existing scientific research to improve how to interrogate detainees (i.e., no torture). You'd be surprised how little they know about the topic-- they've mostly been winging it.

I met with two very nice and non-tortuous ladies from the FBI who were quite interested in our research on question-asking. They wanted to know, among other things, what type of question gets a certain type of response.

And as to your question about MA in interrogation, the FBI does have a post-doc position available to research the subject. I was encouraged to apply, but I declined, for personal reasons. But it's all above board.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[Tassach]

[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Independent clauses. Learn what they mean.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[shentino]

The 5th amendment applies to anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction of US courts.

Citizenship and residency upon US soil are factors in that but it is jurisdiction that ultimately determines if the 5th amendment applies in any given case.

To put bluntly, if they can use it against you in court, it applies.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[bdabautcb]

Thanks, AC. There is an analogy here to the NFL controversy surrounding the bounty with the Saints. Do you think they didn't know what was going on? If they truly did not, isn't there job to know what is going on?

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[bdabautcb]

This also requires holding people indefinetely without bringing charges, something that is constitutionally not allowed in the U... oh, wait.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[demachina]

For starters read Torture accusations at Gitmo.

The International Red Cross, after inspecting Gitmo reported "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions"

"On June 15, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in Iraq said she was told from the top to treat detainees like dogs "as it is done in Guantanamo [Camp Delta]."

There a bunch of other accusations there of practices at Gitmo that were very similar to the things that were occurring at Abu Ghraib.

If Abu Ghraib abuses were entirely due to a bunch of rogue enlisted people in Iraq how do you explain many of the same techniques being used at Gitmo on the other side of the world. The one and only answer is that the abuses were DOD and CIA doctrine and fully authorized from the Pentagon and the White House. The only thing that happened at Abu Ghraib is A) the clueless enlisted people foolishly took large numbers of pictures and B) when you order clueless enlisted people to engage in torture its very easy for them to go off the deep end once they get rolling.

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[elucido]

As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.

The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).

The problem is the FBI expects various communities across the United States to take their word after they already have done all the things everyone is afraid of. Does the FBI ever make a case for why it needs new powers other than because they say so?

Can you explain how these new techniques can protect the nation? And can you guarantee these techniques wont be used on us? Government agencies always induce fear so they can take more power and then years later we find those new powers used against us.

What about those unmanned drones? Now they want to let police use unmanned drones and satellites. Are you okay with that?

Re:This is one area we've regressed.

[RockDoctor]

Torture is a well known technique, shown to be in effective many times in history.

FTFY

Torture is very well known to be an effective way of getting the torture victim to tell the torturers absolutely anything that the torture victim thinks that the torturers want to hear, in order to get the torture to stop.

Other than that, torture is singularly ineffective compared to intelligence work, traffic analysis, forensic analysis, etc. Though it does give the impression of doing "something", which is often important to the torturers.

1984

[Dyinobal]

Hey guys I heard the ministry of love in 1984 had some pretty sweet ideas on interrogation. Perhaps you guys can take a look at those for inspiration.

Re:1984

[siddesu]

I am sure they have heard the theory that coercion does not produce useful intelligence. I'd assume they have in mind some kind of truth serum rather than a big basement with torture implements.

Re:1984

[TWX]

No, but an inside man could. Which was a featured part of 1984 and the film Stalag 17. Those who interrogate would have to place detainees in close proximity to agents, subject both (or give the appearance) to uncomfortable experiences, and let trust develop, so the agent can get information. Not easy, not quick, not cheap, but might possibly be effective.

Re:1984

[AHuxley]

Diesel Therapy - moving people around in stress positions with no sleep, food, meds... lost in the system with your lawyer making calls.
Moving people around the jail system in cold, un cleaned cells for a few days- make a fuss and you get restraints and meds.
Mix in some pain compliance along the way and lost more paper work...
You are then found, re united with your family, good legal team and then get a one time offer to sign away years and inform...
Mix in state and federal, get bail form your state and a face federal case as you walk out ... no refunds.
Can you still afford that fancy lawyer? Risk a federal court with a 85%+++ conviction rate?
Now the laws for the "duration of the armed conflict" set in ... welcome to the mystery that could be "indefinite" and a new type of legal team. i.e. "You Don't Get a Lawyer"

Re:1984

[wisnoskij]

Oh, that is a huge exaggeration.
as long as the subject remains lucid, and you have some way of verifying the information, torture is a pretty simple idea.
Make the subject want the torture to end more then he wants to not give up the information (it is identical to payment/bribery).
Yes, we know that it can be used in stupid ways, like getting people to admit to anything, but you would hope that the FBI knows enough about the uses and weaknesses of torture to not get into trouble like that.

Re:1984

[paiute]

you have some way of verifying the information

If I can verify information, why am I torturing anyone?

Re:1984

[catchblue22]

I am sure they have heard the theory that coercion does not produce useful intelligence. I'd assume they have in mind some kind of truth serum rather than a big basement with torture implements.

Picture this. It happened a few years ago, and was likely perpetrated by British agents. You and your husband are grabbed by masked men and stuffed into a truck. You are held in a dark tight cell and have no idea why you have been imprisoned or when or even if you will be released. You are then strapped to a board. Duct tape is wrapped around your feet. Then around your legs. Then upwards, pinning your arms. Upwards to your chest. Then over your face. One eye is taped open, so you can't blink, while the other is taped closed. You are carried into an airplane. You have no idea where you are going. On the airplane you hear what you think is your husband screaming, so you know he is with you. Before that, he could have been dead. You fly for many hours, land, and then take off. After many hours you arrive in a warm place (which is actually Libya, though you don't know this at the time). In the Libyan jail, you are kept in cramped conditions, poorly fed, beaten, tortured.

Enhanced interrogation my ass. Orwell knew what could happen. New Speak. Torture.

Re:1984

[siddesu]

The way I read this, they want the kind of stuff that is in the head of only one guy, the mastermind stuff. If that's the premise, I kinda fail to see how they verify such details, or prevent someone from pulling a Keyser Soze on them.

It is quite telling that torture was liberally used in practically all widely known trials that relied on fake confessions in Stalin's Russia, yet I haven't seen a lot of references about torture when real foreign intelligence agents were involved. Of course, it may just be the details of their trials are guarded better.

Re:1984

[Alex Belits]

This only works in movies.

Re:1984

[Ash Vince]

Picture this. It happened a few years ago, and was likely perpetrated by British agents.

Not quite.

I am guessing you mean Abdelhakim Belhadj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelhakim_Belhadj)

It was most likely the flying him half way round the world bit was perpetrated by US Agents since the US has the infrastructure to do this (ie, the black flights program). Us British just provided the land that the his rendition flight refuelled at and the information on where to kidnap him from. Not that this makes us any less complicit but you might as well be factually accurate :)

Re:1984

[wisnoskij]

What only works in movies?
Verifying a phone number/or other generic information by dialling/using it?
Or you mean torture. Yes there has never been a scientific study confirming or denying its effectiveness but the entire subject matter is far to immoral to ever have one. Yes, that is a common belief, but not one grounded in any facts; People just want to believe that something this immoral would not be effective (similarly to crime does not pay).
And like I said a few comments above, the idea is very simple; You pay a person to help you, particularly in this case you pay them with by stopping the pain/discomfort/psychological abuse.
And we already have studies, I assume, on the effectiveness of trading goods/services between entities for the betterment of both. The idea is so simple and based in other common ideas that unless there is a lot of evidence to disprove its effectiveness then you really have to assume that it works.

Re:1984

[wisnoskij]

Well it depends on the information. locations/addresses can be checked, locations and dates of attacks can be guarded (but this takes longer because you have to wait), etc.
Everything that is of practical use in the real world can be verified because it exists or does not. As for confessions, there is tons of evidence that when you are looking for specific "known" information and all you want is for someone to confirm with a yes/no (where a yes means stop the torture and a no means continue until we get a yes) that you will not get the truth. When you are doing this you do not want the truth, only an excuse.

Re:1984

[drinkypoo]

It was most likely the flying him half way round the world bit was perpetrated by US Agents since the US has the infrastructure to do this (ie, the black flights program).

Everything we learned about intrigue we learned from you. If your argument is really that you don't have enough planes to have done it you're an asshole.

Re:1984

[swalve]

The reason that doesn't stand up is because they both don't have exactly the same goals. It's like going to a prostitute- the prostitute will act like they are enjoying it because that's what gets the john to come back. When you incentivize the lie, that's what you get. It's pretty clear that when people are under duress, their ability to think of the future narrows. They will start to say whatever works to stop the pain now, tomorrow's pain be damned.

Re:1984

[wisnoskij]

I agree 100%.
But the easiest thing for a person to say in that situation is simply the truth. Coming up with a lie is difficult and the truth has the added benefit of stopping future pain as well as current.
And confessions do not have to come under the knife, so to speak; It does not have to be a moment of irrational weakness. The subject can come to the realization that overall his life will be better if he starts to cooperative between sessions.

Re:1984

[Alex Belits]

And what if the truth is something the "interrogator" does not like?

Re:1984

[wisnoskij]

I don't see what that has to do with.
If the interrogator is set on getting a specific answer out of someone then he will likely get it eventually.
torture is tool and like any other tool it is effective at accomplishing some tasks and ineffective at others. It can be used correctly or incorrectly, skilfully or incompetently.

I plead the fif

[siddesu]

Just in case.

Re:WATER BOARDING

[qbzzt]

I think they're looking for nicer ways to achieve the same effect. They aren't trying to cause pain, they're trying to get information.

if Ali Soufan wasn't a consultant on this thing...

[decora]

then its kind of pointless.

Quite the opposite.

[khasim]

Torture is a well known technique, shown to be effective many times in history.

Yes, I'm sure that those people tortured back then really did practice black magic with the Devil.

Or maybe torture just gets confessions whether they're factual or not.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[qbzzt]

Torture, by itself, only makes the victims say whatever they think the torturer wants them to say.

However, if the interrogator already has some information, s/he can teach the victim that lying causes pain in a way that saying the truth doesn't. If victims don't know the exact extent of the interrogator's knowledge, they'll be afraid to lie.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I think of torture, I remember that Mordor is in Pakistan.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Moryath]

Obligatory XKCD.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[elucido]

Torture, by itself, only makes the victims say whatever they think the torturer wants them to say.

However, if the interrogator already has some information, s/he can teach the victim that lying causes pain in a way that saying the truth doesn't. If victims don't know the exact extent of the interrogator's knowledge, they'll be afraid to lie.

It's also a possibility that the torturer can punish the victim until the victim follows the script of saying and doing what they ask. This might not work in all cases but it can work in some cases. The victim is just going to want to go home and survive the situation while the torturer wants control over the victim.

If it's just about information then there is no need for an elaborate overt FBI interrogation process. There is no need for intimidation, men in suits with badges, and threats. Simply wiretap and surveillance and you can get all the information you need. Simple have the subjects friends question the subject and collect information that way.

There is no need to interrogate in most cases. Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous Coward]

torture just gets confessions whether they're factual or not.

Which is the whole point. Nobody cares about the facts except historians. If we can torture enough people so that we can claim with a straight face to have prevented 14,000 suitcase nukes from going off in Toys "R" Us stores across the country, and get it repeated by the credulous press through the election cycle, who the hell cares if it's true? It wins elections, makes money, and makes inconvenient brown people with weird religious beliefs disappear.

Torture is extremely effective at its purpose. Its purpose is to elicit false confessions. This is not a flaw, this is by design.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Tore S B]

There is also the not-insignificant dimension of what torture does to the moral standing of those who apply it.

If you care about moral standing and freedom and that kind of stuff that was supposed to make it a Good Thing that the US won the cold war, that should be quite significant.

As a Norwegian politically active youth - center-left - I sometimes find myself missing the Soviet Union. Do you have any idea how angry that makes me?

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Niedi]

I wish I had some modpoints right now...
This is so true, especially if we're talking about something as foggy as terrorism. If you're in a flat out war and you want to know where the army will try to invade, a wrong confession will net you nothing because your failure will be obvious. However if you can claim you've thwarted terrorist plan x that may or may not have existed then it's all fine. Kinda like people thwarted the evil witches' plan to poison the well and hold a black mass back in the good olde days...

Re:Quite the opposite.

[loufoque]

Whenever wiretapping is not effective because the subject is careful and does not transfer information in unsafe manners?

Re:Quite the opposite.

[kikito]

> Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?

Internet Explorer 6.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[umghhh]

I think you missed the point. There are different types of interrogation as well as there are different types of goals for the interrogation. If your goal is to produce a villain then torture is working well for you. If you are interested in producing facts then you need to be really tough on yourself not to spoil the results. If you want facts you cannot only apply pain and fear but also your brain. Good police officers do talk to suspects to establish contact and enable confession. It is not always possible but that is how they work in civilized world. There is afaik (but I am not a police officer so that is limited knowledge based on interest in these matters). no rule that allows you to do it. I believe however if you are outside of legal domain (like CIA were many times) then your options increase and in fact these things have been investigated. Often to the point where scientists became brutally inhumane (start your search with "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation"). That FBI now wants to include science is not the first time authorities do that. I guess we even pay them to become as effective as possible and including scientists is perceived as doing exactly that.It still feels spooky / not sure if I want them to be very effective or rather not.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[qbzzt]

Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/interr.pdf

Re:Quite the opposite.

[elucido]

Whenever wiretapping is not effective because the subject is careful and does not transfer information in unsafe manners?

Careful? So you truly believe anyone can be so careful so as not to leave any trace anywhere? I don't.

Maybe because I live in a city with video cameras, go on an internet which is wiretapped, and know the government is watching everything we do that I don't believe anyone in any city in the USA is going to fly under the radar.

Now if you're talking about some guy in some foreign country in the middle of no where or in some foreign city where they don't have very good counter intelligence then a case could be made. But you know how these things go, they say they are only going to use it on foreigners and then eventually American citizens are under interrogation.

Rather than just accept that the FBI needs new powers shouldn't we ask why they ask for them and allow them to make a case?

Re:Quite the opposite.

[elucido]

So you're talking about scenarios where there a prisoners of war such as World War 2 and Vietnam.

"On two occasions, Herrington has accepted U.S. Army requests to assess
its interrogation operations. After viewing interrogations at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay, he became a vocal critic of existing U.S. interrogation strate-
gies. He remains frustrated by his nation’s failure to develop a dedicated strate-
gic interrogator corps and eschew the coercive interrogation methods that he
believes run directly counter to U.S. strategic objectives in the GWOT. "

This is exactly what I'm saying. I don't however know if interrogations the way they are being used today are even worthwhile. If you interrogate a terrorist suspect for instance this is not the same as interrogating a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war have rights and have a state which represent them while terrorist suspects have no rights whatsoever.

If we are going to treat terrorist suspects like prisoners of war that probably would be an advance. If we follow the Geneva convention that would be an advance. If we actually stopped keeping all this stuff secret that would be an advance.

The reason people associate interrogation with torture is because the government wants to conduct these interrogations in secret in the cover of night and not explain what for or what the charges are or anything. So in that case of course people are going to be against interrogation when the government has given itself the power to basically interrogate anyone without any public trial. On top of this the President can kill anyone including American citizens without a trial.

So you can understand why people aren't liking the FBI's request for better interrogation techniques at this time. The FBI needs to justify what it's trying to do because right now people either don't agree with what the FBI does or what it does is so secret no one really knows except for the FBI itself.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[swalve]

That's what was most disgusting about the "waterboarding" hubbub of a few years ago. The self-styled moral authorities were tripping over themselves to justify it. The same ones who were screaming about moral relativism one or two propaganda cycles prior.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[TheCarp]

Please cite references. Or are you refering to your own personal experience? Don't forget that since the captive must know his captor doesn't have all the information, and could even have distorted info, so even the truth may get him punished if the interrogator thinks its a lie. He is still just learning to say what they want to hear.

Torture techniques, like many modern less dramatic techniques are seldom aimed at getting the whole truth so much as producing a confession. Even without torture, standard modern interrogation techniques have shown, in testing, to be able to extract a confession 90% of the time, even when the confessor isn't guilty.

Of course, many of these techniques are simple subtle applications of psychological torture.... you can get considered for bail, or spend your days in here. You can confess to this lesser crime than we say you did, or else face trial for this list of crimes.

I have seen interviews with military interrogation experts who have said that torture has generally been found to validate the subjects view of his captors and results in less cooperation.

Far more effective is subtle "befriending". There was a german interrogator who was known for getting a lot of information by taking captured pilots for walks and just....chatting them up casually. Ever seen the police question someone.... Good Cop/Bad Cop is a cliche for a reason. They don't play bad cop bad cop for a reason.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[jd2112]

Using IE6 is punishment enough.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[nbauman]

Yes, one of the reasons for torturing captives during the runup to the Iraqi war was to get them to "admit" that Saddam Hussein was working with al Qaeda. They didn't want the facts, they just wanted classified information to tout their war.

The New York Times had an essay by a real interrogator, who interrogated Nazis after WWII, who explained why the CIA was doing it all wrong.

One of the first skills of an interrogator is to know the subject's language with great fluency. The U.S. interrogators after WWII knew German and Japanese sometimes with native fluency. So did the Soviet interrogators. It makes sense (although making sense never counted for much during the Bush Administration). How can you interrogate somebody through a translator?

The FBI wasn't as bad as the CIA, BTW. FBI investigators often refused to have anything to do with the CIA interrogations when they saw what was going on.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[jafac]

The purpose of torture is not to elicit false confessions.

It is to justify a fascist police state, by feeding the xenophobia of the masses. When the state tortures, the people feel safer, because they feel that the most brutal means possible, are being used to "protect them". (the masses do not, and can not, and WILL NOT, rationally understand that torture is not effective at protecting them.) Torture simply makes people feel better.

It also terrorizes the opposition. (but this is not particularly deterrent, since innocent people obviously get caught and tortured).

This is why; even when the practice is highly classified, and performed in secret locations, the knowledge that torture IS occurring, must be disseminated, often through political channels. If they REALLY wanted it kept secret, it would be treated like an anonymous battlefield death. The victim would be interrogated, and he would disappear, forever.
But the fact is, the torturers talk about it. The victims are released, so that they can talk about it. The politicians who order it, talk about it, so they can score their political points. THIS is the true purpose of torture.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[Tassach]

torture just gets confessions whether they're factual or not.

THIS.

Maybe with some hard, government-sponsored and -approved research to back it up, we'll stop using torture... I don't care if the government stops condoning torture because it's been proven to be ineffective or because it's morally wrong, just so long as they stop.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[AssholeMcGee]

But the FBI has always used science or psychology to get a confession or to wear down a suspect. This recent research is no different, however it would seem those involved being previous CIA and other government agencies, the so called leaders of this, could or can be, linked to the Abu Ghraib tortures, and this could be another attempt at new torture technics. And I actually believe this could very well be what they are up to!!!!!!!!! My thing was about how torture does not work, if fact there are several military men and women that treated "prisoners" like normal Iraq people, if you treat war prisoners as normal people you will in fact get more truthful info from them, they start to notice that there enemy or the BS they were to believe over there enemy was false. They notice there enemy is no different then themselves. Terrorism is different when compared previous wars, however torture with these groups is also going to fail. They are to believe the US is the enemy, but they do not know why. If you can convince them otherwise, by showing you are no different then they are, you make an ally, gaining valuable info. Not only info but you could also convince them to stay in the group and feed you more info on the groups next moves, even over what other groups are involved, you may get locations and be able to take them out.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[AssholeMcGee]

I would go further and say the Abu Ghraib media frenzy was allowed to happen to piss off the MiddleEast, similar to the Communist Propaganda the US tried for years to get support from citizens, while also invoking the enemy to make a move. This is all done to convince citizens why the government should spend XX Billions in new military machines and bombs, or to show war can still make money.

Re:Quite the opposite.

[loufoque]

Careful? So you truly believe anyone can be so careful so as not to leave any trace anywhere?

Yes, one can easily not leave any trace that would be findable using practical methods.

go on an internet which is wiretapped

You read slashdot yet still don't know there is no reliable method to actually do this? Just use encryption and it's not possible to wiretap anymore.

Maybe because I live in a city with video cameras, go on an internet which is wiretapped, and know the government is watching everything we do that I don't believe anyone in any city in the USA is going to fly under the radar.

Let me get this right, you're advocating that the government should be spying on everything everyone does, leaving no privacy or freedom to anyone, just so that some criminals detaining life-altering information could avoid torture?

Threaten a Dog

[R3d M3rcury]

Hey, it made me buy the magazine...

Re:WATER BOARDING

[ExploHD]

They aren't trying to cause pain, they're trying to get accurate information.

FTFY

or...

[Anonymous Coward]

"against detainees identified as having information regarding terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies."

or

"against hacker"

or

"against protestors"

or

"against any person we deem not conforming for normal standards"

Re:Wonder if this is code for torture

[Enderandrew]

Quite the opposite. Torture tends to be counter-intuitive. You condition people to tell you what they think you want to hear, which isn't necessarily the truth.

Interrogation however is critical for law enforcement on any level. Questioning how interrogations are handled and looking for better methods to gain information should steer away from torture.

Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[uvajed_ekil]

"Uh, we know what we want to do isn't legal and isn't morally acceptable in a civilized society, or else we wouldn't be asking for specific permission now via scientific investigation because we would already be doing it, but we think torture is definitely an effective interrogation technique, so..."

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[Obfuscant]

"Uh, we know what we want to do isn't legal and isn't morally acceptable in a civilized society,...

Interrogation and intelligence interviews certainly are legal and morally acceptable in a civilized society. Do you think we're supposed to catch bad guys and then say "you sit over there, we aren't going to ask you anything about what your friends are planning because someone told us it wasn't morally acceptable to interview you"? Do you think that other civilized societies don't interrogate anyone?

What isn't legal or acceptable is torture, and if you read the fine article you'd notice that nothing at all was said about coming up with new and better torture methods, only evaluation existing interrogation methods to see how those could be improved.

Classifying this as "department of creepy" displays the author's bias. That it comes from NetworkWorld makes as much sense as the Zimmerman story that appeared in slashdot recently. Neither one has any special relevance to nerds or networks.

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[elucido]

"Uh, we know what we want to do isn't legal and isn't morally acceptable in a civilized society,...

Interrogation and intelligence interviews certainly are legal and morally acceptable in a civilized society. Do you think we're supposed to catch bad guys and then say "you sit over there, we aren't going to ask you anything about what your friends are planning because someone told us it wasn't morally acceptable to interview you"? Do you think that other civilized societies don't interrogate anyone?

What isn't legal or acceptable is torture, and if you read the fine article you'd notice that nothing at all was said about coming up with new and better torture methods, only evaluation existing interrogation methods to see how those could be improved.

Classifying this as "department of creepy" displays the author's bias. That it comes from NetworkWorld makes as much sense as the Zimmerman story that appeared in slashdot recently. Neither one has any special relevance to nerds or networks.

You really think with all the drones, spy satellites, wiretapped internet, hidden cameras and informants everywhere that they'd need to sit someone down in a room and interrogate them?

This isn't about good and bad guys. There's good and bad guys on both sides. It's about whether or not interrogations of this sort are still necessary. An overt interrogation is for intimidation. Why do you have to ask anyone what they are doing and try to get anyone to betray their friends when you can use technological means to figure that out and not have to ask?

Why do we build all this technology with all these satellites if at the end of the day we are going to beat them over the head with a phone book in a dark room somewhere? The governments around the world can see what most people are doing most of the time. All of us certainly don't have any secrets.

When you're talking about national security I'm sure the NSA and FBI do a fine job with what they have. When you're talking about crime why do you feel it's okay to interrogate any suspects? The suspect has a right to remain silent. There is no reason to interrogate anyone based on anything other than national security and I'm not convinced interrogation is the key to national security.

Tell me a realistic instance where it is without the good guys vs bad guys mythology or the feigned ignorance of technology. Why do we need to conduct interrogations on suspects even if it's a terrorism investigation when we can simply put an individual under surveillance? What exactly can a suspect say under interrogation that we couldn't see from surveillance?

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[TheLink]

You really think with all the drones, spy satellites, wiretapped internet, hidden cameras and informants everywhere that they'd need to sit someone down in a room and interrogate them?

There are limitations to technology, and the cameras and wiretaps aren't everywhere yet.

When you're talking about crime why do you feel it's okay to interrogate any suspects? The suspect has a right to remain silent. There is no reason to interrogate anyone based on anything other than national security and I'm not convinced interrogation is the key to national security.

That's completely stupid. You interrogate people because even if they have a right to remain silent they still talk anyway! And very often people actually give you correct information that incriminates them.

Go watch this "Don't talk to the police" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[dwillden]

Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.

Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.

Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.

Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.

Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.

I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.

As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[elucido]

You really think with all the drones, spy satellites, wiretapped internet, hidden cameras and informants everywhere that they'd need to sit someone down in a room and interrogate them?

There are limitations to technology, and the cameras and wiretaps aren't everywhere yet.

When you're talking about crime why do you feel it's okay to interrogate any suspects? The suspect has a right to remain silent. There is no reason to interrogate anyone based on anything other than national security and I'm not convinced interrogation is the key to national security.

That's completely stupid. You interrogate people because even if they have a right to remain silent they still talk anyway! And very often people actually give you correct information that incriminates them.

Go watch this "Don't talk to the police" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

And how does the government make people talk? That is the coercive interrogation I'm concerned about.

If people want to talk then you don't even need an interrogation. You can just do all of that covertly and not have an overt interrogation and avoid all the intimidation. If people don't want to talk and if national security is not on the line why should the FBI have the ability to try and force people to talk?

The only instance I can think of where it makes sense to force people to talk are when lives are at stake or when it's a national security type situation. Most of the people actually being arrested however seem to be stupid kids and drug dealers. If the FBI were putting it's resources into violent crimes and into national security then their request might be more justifiable. What I'm saying is why give broad powers to interrogate anyone for any crime when you can restrict those powers or try to?

Re:Not all-out, no holds barred torture

[elucido]

Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.

Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.

Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.

Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.

Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.

I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.

As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.

I understand what you are saying but isn't that the job of the CIA? The problem I have with this is that these interrogation techniques may someday be turned against American citizens and used on American communities because some law maker decides to pass some dumbass law which criminalizes enough people. The USA is currently politically unstable, and many people don't agree with the current focus of the law enforcement.

FBI is law enforcement not military. If this interrogation were to only be used for protecting national security I wouldn't have such a problem with it. Bosnia was an issue of national security, and the people being interr

Tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you familiar with the works of Shan Yu?

Lol

[lightknight]

Here's an idea. Stand up, in your cubicle, and ask out loud 'does anyone here know how to perform a formal investigation?'

Re:Lol

[Shoten]

Here's an idea. Stand up, in your cubicle, and ask out loud 'does anyone here know how to perform a formal investigation?'

You laugh, but at Fox News they apparently do!

Avoiding the T-word

[macraig]

Hey, ya gotta give 'em credit for trying to avoid torture. Technology will solve it eventually, though: just plug a cable in the back of their neck and download everything... so long as you can get the "detainee" to cough up his mental encryption key.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[elucido]

And it's because we know technology is so advanced that we know torture is so wrong. We know that it's damn near impossible for anyone to keep a secret from the government so why does the government need "interrogations" when they know practically everything about anyone?

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[AHuxley]

Yes the FBI and CIA have the skill set to talk to anyone and work on a case as they have always done.
Work with us, face court, a package of court options or payments or one last set up and freedom.
The rush for the US to normalise "interrogations" seems to be to provide cover for past political actions, the work of allies and friends around the world.
Why allow free internal FBI methods when you can sell/contract expensive, tested "interrogation" methods?
All the guards, hidden sites, weapons training, translators, science, documents, medical advice, food - everybody around this new private security science is making 'new' cash.
vs a % budget growth within the FBI.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[Tore S B]

For hell's sake! "Trying to avoid torture" isn't something that gives you credit. Not using torture is something that is expected of civilized people. Period.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[jeremy85mai]

Would you like the red pill.... or the blue one?

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[tftp]

why does the government need "interrogations" when they know practically everything about anyone?

Despite the popular paranoia, the government knows very little about anyone; and what it does know is largely noise. Big Brother may know where you had been with your car, and it may know what you bought at a corner grocery store. But the government doesn't know what you are thinking, what you are planning, what - among gigabytes of miscellaneous data that your browser downloaded from the Internet is important and what is not. As an old but still good example, the government does not know which one poem out of a fairly thick book on the shelf acts as the encryption key today.

In other words, the government (or any observer) cannot know anything that a regular Joe hasn't expressed in a public or a semi-public environment. Of course if that Joe becomes a target of very close surveillance then even walls of his home are not strong enough to hide his actions. But even then the walls of his cranium remain strong - and that's when you break out the rubber hose.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[macraig]

Considering that even after electing a "transparent" Democratic President we *still* have torture protocols in place, we should be happy for even getting them to be apologetic about it. Getting anything more ethical than that out of 'em will require the use of some re-purposed plowshares, if you get my drift.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[macraig]

I'd like one of each, please. And make it a double.

Re:Avoiding the T-word

[Kreigaffe]

You're putting way too much faith in technology.

Technological surveillance is not omniscient. It is not omnipresent.

Already failed

[backslashdot]

If your interrogation program includes torture, you've already failed.

Interrogation ideas

[kaldari]

Have you tried Indian Rope Burn? It always works for me.

Re:Interrogation ideas

[paleo2002]

No, no. That's old school. They want new, advanced techniques. Perhaps they can start using a fuel cell in place of a car battery . . .

Re:Interrogation ideas

[Nationless]

In an attempt to go green they should try going solar powered or maybe wat.. oh, wait.

Re:WATER BOARDING

[Anonymous Coward]

B-b-b-but Bush. And Cheney.

And now Obama...

I guess the old techniques are wearing thin

[interval1066]

You mean forcing them to listen to Kanye West's 'Gold Digger' for the 1000th time isn't as effective as it once was?

Re:I guess the old techniques are wearing thin

[stud9920]

Terrorists adapted, they now only recruit personnel that love Kanye West

No it's just more high tech now

[elucido]

They still have enhanced interrogation techniques and still can do inquisition like activities only now it's something you can't prove they are doing in court because the technology is more sophisticated.

The real question is why does the FBI need this interrogation technology? Who is it for?

Re:No it's just more high tech now

[swalve]

Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.

Re:No it's just more high tech now

[elucido]

Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.

That is what the FBI said with the drone nonsense. The unmanned drones were to be used to fight terrorists and now of course they are used to watch all of us. How is that good for the community?

If the goal is to cut down on crime then use having better interrogation and intense surveillance will do that but at the same time it will increase incarceration rates and destroy communities. So there has to be a balance here and a purpose with regard to using technology in policing. If the goal is simply to get maximum arrests and maximum incarceration then I'm not for that goal because that's bad for America.

If the goal is to protect national security that is a different goal but that has nothing to do with arrest rates and more to do with stopping terrorism.The problem is terrorism can later on be made to include all sorts of people who don't fit as terrorists today so it's also important that we once and for all clearly define who and what a terrorist is and who these resources should target. If we target something vague like "criminals" then that's not the same as something specific like "domestic terrorists".

Interrogation is a form of control

[elucido]

And that is one of the problems with it. If you ask any question in the right way you can get any answer.

So basically it's about the method of interrogation that determines the result. So if they want someone to admit to being a terrorist they could get 99% of people to admit that if they used the right interrogation methods. This is the problem with "enhanced" interrogation. It's asking someone a question while in the backround applying coercion tactics so they answer it the way you want them to.

So the question stands why do we need to have this capability in the first place? Who exactly is it for? Every human is going to break under interrogation, and that break will be psychological, physical, or both, so whats the point?

If the goal is just to break people then why help them advance the science of destroying people?

Re:Interrogation is a form of control

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much the whole point. Often they don't really want to hear the truth, they want to hear a 'truth' that supports a decision already made.

Take a look at the Iraq fiasco. They took a bunch of made-up BS by a guy who they KNEW was making shit up, doctored it to make it look more like what they wanted, and then used it as a pretext for a war that the government had already been planning for some time.

People often overlook the fact that torture for information is always carried out with a political goal in mind. Anyone who is willing to toture somebody isn't going to be above twisting things to suit their political interests.

Booze

[crotherm]

I find booze works pretty well.

Re:WATER BOARDING

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't trying to cause pain

You have to keep in mind that there are many people working under them. Some of them may very well want to cause pain to the enemy. Torture is evil and should never be used even if you're 100% certain the person has useful information. I don't care how effective it is.

FBI? Please...

[Dripdry]

I know there must be better FBI Agents out there, but I once knew a couple. They were the most paranoid, scary people I've met. Guy had to have a gun everywhere he went, wouldn't give out his address (even though I was invited to his house) and I was accused of lying to him because,"We're trained to detect that kind of thing."

Family members who are in the military or are police officers warned me to get the hell away from them, which I did.

I don't know, maybe they SHOULD refine their techniques. Jesus, if they had a good way of actually getting information, instead of just insane, paranoid speculation it might help.
Then again, maybe they'd just stay insecure and paranoid...

Re:FBI? Please...

[elucido]

I know there must be better FBI Agents out there, but I once knew a couple. They were the most paranoid, scary people I've met. Guy had to have a gun everywhere he went, wouldn't give out his address (even though I was invited to his house) and I was accused of lying to him because,"We're trained to detect that kind of thing."

Family members who are in the military or are police officers warned me to get the hell away from them, which I did.

I don't know, maybe they SHOULD refine their techniques. Jesus, if they had a good way of actually getting information, instead of just insane, paranoid speculation it might help.
Then again, maybe they'd just stay insecure and paranoid...

It all depends on the situation. Generally speaking though if they want information out of someone they won't approach in a suit and tie with an FBI badge. One of your best friends will simply ask you about something and then tell the FBI everything you said.

Re:torture is a bind.

[elucido]

The whole torture controversy is a bind to conceal the fact that the U.S. government has totally mastered the art of brain suck.

They give (relatively safe drugs), plug the subjects brain into the machine and make statements. The machine reads whether the statements are true or false. It is totally painless.

The whole art of interogation is reduced to the game of 20 questions.

With short-term memory supressing drugs given afterwords, the subject does not even remember what happened to him.

The "torture" controversy is ginned up to prevent the other side from trying to plug this hole.

Osama bin Laden was captured at Tora Bora. The US has been "running" him ever since. Every time a recruit talked to Osama they were really talking to the US. Government.That is why they have mostly failed. Osama could have been "run" a bit longer, but Obama wanted the credit. So Osama got "killed".

Yes but explain those torture pictures and the "enhanced interrogation" techniques and all the documents related to that. It's a fact that the US government has mastered torture and coercion. What this means is the US government (or any government) can use coercive techniques and torture to try and create terrorists out of random innocent people in a population. Some people are more vulnerable than others to this, people who don't have families or people who aren't particularly strong willed could be broken with ease and turned into a member of Al Qaeda.

The problem with this is when the war on terrorism is fought this way it's a situation where the government could be creating the enemy it claims to be fighting and merely using this as a way to drum up funding. It could be a similar situation with the war on drugs where the lawmakers pass certain laws and put pressure on certain communities so that there is a sense of desperation and there is an endless supply of boogymen drug dealers to arrest. Why do we pretend there is a war on terror if we use tactics which could actually help to create terrorists? or pretend there is a war on drugs but then pass laws which make an environment so desperate so that drug dealing becomes attractive?

Visual Disorientation

[BoRegardless]

If you keep someone visually disoriented, they can't keep track of their facts and lies and the paths between them.

Ever try to think of details while viewing a fast moving screen in front of you or when on a moving ride at the county fair. It is very difficult.

Hence, I would provide a visually disorienting "questioning center".

The Outer Limits

[profaneone]

had an episode about an effective interrogation technique, maybe the FBI could just adapt it to fellow human beings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Mercy_(The_Outer_Limits)

Re:Wonder if this is code for torture

[elucido]

Quite the opposite. Torture tends to be counter-intuitive. You condition people to tell you what they think you want to hear, which isn't necessarily the truth.

Interrogation however is critical for law enforcement on any level. Questioning how interrogations are handled and looking for better methods to gain information should steer away from torture.

But what you fail to consider is that FBI agent asking questions might have coercive control over the person being questioned.

If this were Nazi Germany and the SS were sitting down with you with their guns and your family was sitting in another room and they started asking you questions wouldn't you tell them whatever they wanted to hear? The same sort of thing can happen when you're talking about FBI agents who have what seems like unlimited power going up against an ordinary citizen who just wants to survive the situation.

It's all about how the questioning takes place and given the FBI's track record when they interrogate people they use all the underhanded tricks they can to gain an advantage. I see no point in even meeting with the FBI in that scenario for an interrogation. Why would you or anyone agree to be interrogated?

So I'm guessing it's a situation where an FBI agent wants to solve a crime and in some cases they may be willing to do anything to solve the crime. This is the problem, the overly aggressive agent. How could interrogations be done better?

The goal is to get information out of people to solve a crime? A wiretap makes more sense than an interrogation don't you think?

what about some kind of VR interrogation?

[Joe_Dragon]

what about some kind of VR interrogation?

Re:Wonder if this is code for torture

[Enderandrew]

First off, Godwin's Law. I think it's pretty disrespectful to lump the FBI and Nazi Germany together.

Secondly, if they were just abusing absolute power and intended to strong-arm everyone, then why bother studying the science of interrogation? You clearly missed my point. The fact that they want to study the science of interrogation pretty much speaks to the opposite of your suggestion.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[elucido]

Here's the FBI trying to do the right thing...
Nobody will deny that you need to do interrogations. The objection is to using things like torture in the process.

So, why shouldn't we be looking for good ways to do this that don't violate human rights, etc.?

Hey, if they come up with a "brain scan"(tm) that can read out your memory non-invasively, painlessly and instantaneously, that would be a good thing (assuming that things like a warrant exist, and we somehow deal with fifth amendment issues)

having been through several interrogations, by very skilled interrogators, I will be happy to testify that the "more flies with honey" aphorism has more than a grain of truth. The best interrogators just make you think you're there chatting about inconsequential stuff, and only in retrospect do you realize how much information they have gained.

This hollywood inspired/24 hours medieval thing of "force him to talk" is totally bogus, and anybody who does any kind of investigatory work knows it. It's a blatant rationalization for either mean people to do bad things or for sub rosa extrajudicial punishment.

Okay. Tell us why we need interrogation in the age of technological surveillance?

If the government can see everything why does the government need to interrogate?

The Best of the Best at Interrogation.

[nsaspook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp19qiash2U

Already exists...

[s-whs]

And that is psychological analysis using facial expressions and language used.

See the TV series 'Lie to me' which is based on an actual psychologist Ekman.

It's known from analysis of police interrogations here in NL that being friendly in interrrogating gives most results. Even if they are totally oncooperative you can talk in such a way that people want to tell you something, because they want to brag or show how clever they are.

But I guess the FBI hasn't learned that lesson yet...

Btw., I think such analysis should also be applied to all politicians. It would prevent getting sociopaths like George Wanker Bush becoming presidents, but in lower positions too, such a-holes do enormous damage to society.

Re:Already exists...

[djl4570]

Please mod parent up. Paul Ekman blazed a trail in reading body language and facial expressions. It is important to remember that detecting a lie does not tell you what the person is lying about, and you will not detect lies if the person believes their lies such as a pathological liar or a psychopath.
I look forward to the day when politicians, prosecutors, journalists and accused criminals are all subjected to such scrutiny but only after the techniques have been carefully documented and replicated in double blind tests with rigorous peer review.
Commercial plug: Get Lie to Me on DVD. Tim Roth plays the role very well. This was my favorite show on TV before it was canceled.

Re:Already exists...

[zzatz]

The FBI has learned this lesson. They want to get better at it. The US military has learned this lesson. They want to get better at it. I've talked with a US Army trained interrogator, and he was trained to make the subject comfortable and become his friend.

But in any organization, there are those with their own agendas. Some cops know that Joe Blow is a thief, has gotten away with stealing many times, and they don't really care if he's guilty of this specific robbery. Those kind of cops will coerce a confession. Those kind of cops don't want the truth, they want a confession even if it's not true.

When powerful people want lies, they can find people willing to beat lies out of people. FBI agents want facts, not lies, and are trained to do proper interrogations. The same is true for the US military and the CIA. But corruption happens in every country, sometimes more than others, sometimes less, but it always happens. Most of the people who work for the FBI, the CIA, or the US military want the truth. But most is not all, not in the US, not in the NL, not in any country.

Re:Already exists...

[DutchUncle]

Bothered me the most about the waterboarding controversy: Is this the best we could do in this day and age? Where is H. Beam Piper's "veradicator" from the 1960s, or Lois Bujold's "fast-penta", or any of the truth serums described in fiction for years? (Of course none of them really find "the truth", they can at best find what someone truly believes, which could be completely wrong....)

Abuse could indeed make Orwell sound like an optimist; yet there is a legitimate place for interrogation in police and security situations, and torture is so last millennium.

The most effective method...

[idbeholda]

Force the subject to listen to The Best Of Hall & Oates on an 8-Track.

Ya know

[Osgeld]

If they just said please once in a while ...

Re:Wonder if this is code for torture

[Enderandrew]

But he did lump them together, which is what I said. I didn't claim he said they were exactly the same.

Re:Nobody will care

[siddesu]

No worry, my expensive lawyer can spell it allrite.

Ethical Paradox

[cuon]

Proper scientific research involving humans must be conducted ethically and I'm not sure how this is possible with interrogation "science." The way I see it, either the experiments must be unethical or else the experiments may not yield sufficient mental strain within their subjects to produce data that would translate well in their real world implementations (i.e. they would need to extrapolate from their findings, which goes beyond the scope of what the research supports). It seems quite jumbled.

Re:Pretty tame

[jwijnands]

We all know what science of interrogation means in your country these days. Even the FBI knows and therefore doesn't need to spell it out

whats the matter?

[FudRucker]

is waterboarding and intimidation and beatings not working anymore?

Re:how do we know who the real terrorists are?

[cold fjord]

You have too many wild conspiracy theories, and too few facts. Most of what your wrote is nonsense. You should think about spending some time in the library researching militant Islam and the periodic outbursts of Islamist terror over the centuries. If you can't manage that you are likely to earn a reputation as a crank.

Re:WATER BOARDING

[Pentium100]

Depending on who the enemy is. If he is a terrorist who has personally killed people (and you are 100% certain of that, maybe he brags about it), I'd say give him to Jack Bauer. Even if he does not have any useful information.

Re:how do we know who the real terrorists are?

[dwillden]

Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
How many more times do we have to say it. They are not synonyms. This effort is to improve interrogation so we don't have to let the radicals push us into torture (as happened in the early days of Afghanistan.)

There Are Four Lights

[Uberbah]

However, if the interrogator already has some information, s/he can teach the victim that lying causes pain in a way that saying the truth doesn't. If victims don't know the exact extent of the interrogator's knowledge, they'll be afraid to lie.

And how does the interrogator tell the difference between withholding information and ignorance?

They don't, of course. So they apply increasing amounts of pain until they get the answer they want. And you're right back to square one, with the victim saying whatever he things his captors want to hear.

Re:There Are Four Lights

[Uberbah]

Really?

Obviously.

This isn't that hard.

Indeed it's not. The whole damned point of torturing a suspect to get information is because you think he's withholding intel and that the only way to get it is to torture the bastard.

So your suspect wont give you the answers you want? He's withholding intel, pull out another fingernail! Barring mind reading powers on the part of the interregator, this is no. way. to. tell. the. difference. between lying and withholding information. And if you could read his mind, you wouldn't "need" to torture him in the first place.

Which puts you back at square one, with motivation of anyone being tortured is to stop being tortured. You try thinking about that fact. This "conditioning" crap is a bullshit rationalization to get your Jack Bauer on.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[zzatz]

Because technical measures don't provide everything you might want to know. Because the government can't see everything. Because it is often easier, cheaper, and more effective to simply ask questions.

The bartender might remember what my favorite beer is. I suppose the bar could invest in computers and data mining software to analyze my past purchases. Or the bartender might take a few seconds to ask me what I'd like. Sometimes human intelligence works better than technical means.

Keep in mind that most interrogation isn't about you. They want to know what you know about someone else. The police might want to know if you saw or heard anything before your neighbor's wife disappeared. How they ask, what they ask, makes a difference in the quality of the data you provide. For example, witnesses should be separated before they can talk to each other, and they should be questioned separately. That's not just to prevent conspiracy, it's mostly because they want to know what *you* saw or heard, not what you remember from talking with the other witnesses. Memory is funny. Our memories of actual events are much dimmer than our memories of discussing those events. If you thought you saw a white Camaro, and Fred thought he saw a silver Mustang, the cops want to know that. They don't want to know that you and Fred talked about it and agreed that it must have been a white Mustang.

You want to know how drug dealers get caught? Usually, it's because somebody talked. Small dealer got a lighter sentence, or got off completely, in return for fingering his supplier. Yeah, sometimes a dog might sniff out drugs. Yeah, sometimes a wiretap might reveal something. But most police work amounts to talking to people, and knowing how to talk to people more effectively is a worthy goal.

Torture

[Timtimes]

We all know how well torture works because all you have to do is look at Iraq to see how we found all those missing WMDs by torturing the testicles of toddlers in front of their parents. John Yoo authorized that btw. I think he is teaching American kids law in California these days. Enjoy.

Re:Quite the opposite. Britains Experience

[AssholeMcGee]

Back in world war II Britain found out and proved torture technics DO NOT work. They tried this on German Officers and solders only to find out either they knew nothing or were pissed off at the way they were treated and flat out lied to watch Britain waste there time and efforts to supply false recon or intelligence to there own troops. They realized this was not working. and figured out something different. They offered them immunity and placed them in a government building which looks more or less like a mansion, wired the building for eavesdropping on there talks, they gave them the luxuries like cigars, alcohol, ect... Allowed them to parade around or dress in there uniforms. Sure enough they started mouthing off over positions of there troops, what ammo, artillery, tanks ect.. each group had. They did this in a much shorter time, or quicker then the info they got from torture. You see these same tactics used by police officers, detectives, and the FBI to get a suspect to open up and talk, they even watch what words they use, and act like they are sympathetic to the suspects upbringing. They also do simple things like ask his side of the story or ask if they know this or that person, leave the room for an extended time (on purpose) then come back and say, this person knows you and you lied about not knowing them. This same person claimed you were talking about that night, or they know you were involved, BLA BLA you see a pattern.. They also watch body gestures, eye movement, there posture, this however really does not prove or show anything, they could be nervous or they could be involved with something else, IE be in a gang and by them just getting arrested they will have to answer for to the gang, or it something else illegal and not related to the crime they are being interrogated for.

Re:My rant

[zzatz]

You left out an important word in Purpose 1: to obtain *false* information. Torture is used to get the 'right' answer, where 'right' means the answer that serves the torturer's agenda. Torture actively interferes with getting accurate information and encourages false information. Victims will say anything to make the torture stop. The torture doesn't stop with the first thing the victim says, it continues until the torturer hears what he wants to hear.

Otherwise, I agree with your three purposes. States often indulge in the first (coercing false testimony) and second (fear as an instrument of control). Like you, I'll ignore sadism; it's usually personal rather than institutional.

Re:Wonder if this is code for torture

[shiftless]

First off, Godwin's Law. I think it's pretty disrespectful to lump the FBI and Nazi Germany together.

You're right. He should have used the CIA as his example.

It's Tortoises All The Way Down

[mdm42]

Holden: You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Tortoise? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?

Federal Beach Instigators

[flyneye]

Let's go water-boarding now,
Everybody's learning how,
Go and get some coffee for me (go and get some coffee for me)

Early in the morning we'll be startin' out
Some Muslims will be coming along
We're loading up on caffeine
With our boards inside
And headin' out singing our song

Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me
Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me

Let's go boardin' now
Everybody's learning how
Go and get some coffee for me
(Go and get some coffee for me)

At Washington and Maryland
They're shooting up drugs
At Leavenworth they're breaking your nose
We're going on safari to Cuba this year
So if you're coming get ready to go

Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me
Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me

Let's go boardin' now
Everybody's learning how
Go and get some coffee for me
(Go and get some coffee for me)

They're skinnin' in South America too
They're kicking out in Yemen oooo
I tell you boardings mighty wild
It's getting bigger every day
From Iran to the shores of Peru

Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me
Come on baby wait and see
Yes I'm gonna take you water boarding with me

Let's go boardin' now
Everybody's learning how
Go and get some coffee for me
(Go and get some coffee for me)

With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari
With me
Boardin' Safari

Re:how do we know who the real terrorists are?

[elucido]

You have too many wild conspiracy theories, and too few facts. Most of what your wrote is nonsense. You should think about spending some time in the library researching militant Islam and the periodic outbursts of Islamist terror over the centuries. If you can't manage that you are likely to earn a reputation as a crank.

And you have facts? You know what goes on in secret prisons? Okay post it for me to review so I can learn the facts.

Re:how do we know who the real terrorists are?

[elucido]

Interrogation !=torture

Interrogation !=torture

Interrogation !=torture

Interrogation !=torture

How many more times do we have to say it. They are not synonyms. This effort is to improve interrogation so we don't have to let the radicals push us into torture (as happened in the early days of Afghanistan.)

Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? Okay tell me the purpose of this "interrogation".

Minority Report

[lwriemen]

How can you get more effective than precognition?

US of Oceania

[devent]

I thought to myself while reading 1942 if the USA is already some kind of "Oceania". I'm now at the chapter with Goldstein book and all the symptoms are applicable to the USA.

• Inner party, outer party and the "prols". The inner party is the military industrial complex, with the bankers and the Wallstreet, the Department of Homeland Security and the President on the top. The president is regarded as the official figure of the Party, with little difference if he is a Democrat or Republican. The outer party is the the rest of the government, the Democrat and Republican Party. The "prols" are the low and middle income households.
• Continues war. First it was the Cold War and the hunt for "communists", now it is the "War on Terror". Besides is the "War on Drugs". The USA is now continuously at war, and always in a war that can never be won. The Cold War couldn't be won, neither the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror".
• Stagnant inequality. The fact is that production is now most efficient, we have robots, heavy machinery, etc. A car to manufacture costs not more then $3,000 or less, a computer costs $500 or less. The worker productivity has risen continuously. But where is all this production go? Not to the workers, because the wages are stagnant or sinking. Austerity is now the slogan for everyone, despise the fact that trillions are given away to the "Inner Party" aka the military, bankers and the Wallstreet.
• "Doublethink"/Ideology. The most significant event of the last 10 years is the banking crisis. With shook the world economy and will leave a decade of recession. The failure of the banks was so obvious, that a child can see that the top banks in the world committed fraud and took enormous risks with led to their bankruptcy. The consequences must be obviously, too. More regulation of the bank, stricter enforcement, put the failed banks in public hand. Put the money in the economy, stimulate new jobs, increase wages. But the politic was exact the opposite. Free money for the failed banks, austerity for the government, no regulation and no enforcement.
• Media. The media in the USA is in control of a few mega-cooperations. The media was lying to the people and followed the party line (FOX News).
• Control. The USA is on it's best way to be a total controlling state with laws like the Patriot Act, mass surveillance with cooperation of the ISPs.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[Kreigaffe]

Because the government can't see everything you thick twat.

Torture does not equal effective interrogation

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Torture is easy, from an administrative standpoint, and I'm sure it pleases the more cognitively challenged soldier and bureaucrat and so it persists, even if it doesn't work very well. What you want is reliable information. Hurting people is simply not that effective at obtaining this. Hallucinogenic drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and high resolution fMRI in combination with computational linguistic analysis of what the prisoner said would be first tools of choice if you actually wanted to shake loose useful intelligence. In the case of religious fanatics, cognitive therapy aimed at changing core beliefs would almost certainly be a more effective method than torture.

Interrogation, is the most important thing in..

[Paracelcus]

Interrogation, is the most important thing in a failed, paranoid, surveillance state!

Re:Who are you questioning

[TheSpoom]

5th ammendment applies to US citizens/residents.

Really?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn't say citizen. It doesn't say resident. It says person. That's everybody not otherwise exempted by the war clause.

Re:Quite the opposite. Britains Experience

[tophermeyer]

LEO's in suspect interrogation often use a method called the Reid Technique. It usually starts with several hours of questioning and rapport building to wear down a suspect (fatigue plays a HUGE factor in our ability to deceive). At some point the interrogator will begin moving to a "help us out here, we want to understand" kind of attitude.

One facet of the technique is to identify the individuals values and priorities (kids, job, etc) and offering up potential explanations of the crime that implies they are a bad father, husband, employee etc. If the person is sufficiently fatigued and has built some kind of rapport with the interrogator, the idea is that they will offer up a full confession as a means of explaining why what they did makes them a good father, husband, employee, etc.

Military interrogation is more about general information gathering. Like you describe, a lot of that experience comes out of WWII where we would collect simply vast amounts of information from POWS that individually is largely meaningless, but in aggregate is informative.

Current research with body language, eye tracking, etc indicates most of that is junk. An increase in activity can identify when an individual is nervous about something, but it doesn't necessarily indicate deception and is incredibly sensitive to gender, culture, and (interestingly) language background. The literature talks about these kinds of things as Pinnochio's Nose; some behavior that manifest only when the person is lying, and every time the person is lying. Unfortunately this singular diagnostic behavior doesn't exist.

Source: Worked for a couple of years as a deception researcher, exploring various methods of deception detection.

Cialdini

[NitsujTPU]

The FBI should just pick up this book: http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials/dp/006124189X

There's a chapter that discusses North Korea's program for dealing with POWs during the Korean War. It was astonishingly effective, and, at least the parts in the book, didn't seem to involve much torture.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[elucido]

Because technical measures don't provide everything you might want to know. Because the government can't see everything. Because it is often easier, cheaper, and more effective to simply ask questions.

The bartender might remember what my favorite beer is. I suppose the bar could invest in computers and data mining software to analyze my past purchases. Or the bartender might take a few seconds to ask me what I'd like. Sometimes human intelligence works better than technical means.

Keep in mind that most interrogation isn't about you. They want to know what you know about someone else. The police might want to know if you saw or heard anything before your neighbor's wife disappeared. How they ask, what they ask, makes a difference in the quality of the data you provide. For example, witnesses should be separated before they can talk to each other, and they should be questioned separately. That's not just to prevent conspiracy, it's mostly because they want to know what *you* saw or heard, not what you remember from talking with the other witnesses. Memory is funny. Our memories of actual events are much dimmer than our memories of discussing those events. If you thought you saw a white Camaro, and Fred thought he saw a silver Mustang, the cops want to know that. They don't want to know that you and Fred talked about it and agreed that it must have been a white Mustang.

You want to know how drug dealers get caught? Usually, it's because somebody talked. Small dealer got a lighter sentence, or got off completely, in return for fingering his supplier. Yeah, sometimes a dog might sniff out drugs. Yeah, sometimes a wiretap might reveal something. But most police work amounts to talking to people, and knowing how to talk to people more effectively is a worthy goal.

If they want to know what you know why don't they just say "Here's $10,000 now tell us what you know?". I don't see why you need interrogation. They could offer a reward for information. There is no shortage of people willing to tell what they know. Interrogation might be cheaper but because it's cheaper its also going to depend on the information the government is asking for. If the government is asking people to give information to them which could get them killed then what good is interrogation?

Why would anyone want to be a witness if it puts their lives at risk and why should the government have the power to force anyone to be a witness? What happened to "you have the right to remain silent"?

Also I know how drug dealers get caught and no I don't think catching drug dealers is a good enough argument to improve interrogation. In fact I'd say catching drug dealers is the best argument against it because drug dealers pay taxes, have families, and are a part of the community in many places and a lot of the time the community members don't want to put them in jail just because the FBI or the police thinks they should. People ought to have a right to remain silent or to not cooperate when national security or lives aren't on the line. If we are talking about a serial killer or an actual terrorist then most of the time if the government can actually let people give them tips in an anonymous way they wont need interrogation.

So interrogation is usually associated with stuff people don't like, and with police who people don't perceive as making them safer. Narcs don't make people feel safer so if communities are going to be interrogated over that then it's definitely a bad idea. If someone is trying to kill people, or if there is a serial rapist then it's a different situation but an investigation isn't the same thing as an interrogation. Getting witnesses is important but interrogation is a bit more than just getting witnesses.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[elucido]

Because the government can't see everything you thick twat.

The government can see more than we think.

They might not see everything but the sort of interrogations they have today for the same of excuses they claim to use them for seems to be over done. If you think interrogations are so valuable find a situation where we'd all agree interrogation is a good idea.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[zzatz]

"Tell us what you know" IS interrogation.

I don't think you know what the word means. It means asking questions, making inquiries.

Interrogation does not mean coercion. It does not means making threats. It does not mean beating people up. It does not mean torture. It means asking questions.

Let me give you a few examples. Your neighbors get into a fight one night. It's 2AM and they're standing in the middle of the road screaming at each other. Someone calls the police. The police show up, separate the husband and wife, and take the man down to the station for questioning. The police use rather precise jargon for each step in the process. First, the police detain the husband. Detain, not arrest, because arrest means charging with a crime. They don't yet know if he should be charged, or she should be charged, but they will detain one or both. Detain means to hold. Detain does not mean arrest. Detain does not mean question. Detain does not mean handcuff, which brings up another term: restraints.

Next, the police transport him. In other words, they put him in the back of a police car and take him to the station. Then they interrogate him. They ask him questions. He doesn't need to answer, other than to identify himself.

At any point, they could have beat him. They could have beat him while they were detaining him. They could have beat him while they were putting him in the car. They could have beat him while they were asking questions. But none of the words mean beat; detain does not mean beat, transport does not mean beat, interrogate does not mean beat. The fact that two actions can happen at the same time does not make the words we use for those actions interchangeable. You can be tortured at the same time as you are being interrogated, and you can be eating a meal at the same time as you are being interrogated. Interrogation refers to the questioning, not the eating or torture.

Interrogation is the act of asking questions or inquiring.

Re:Quite the opposite. Britains Experience

[bdabautcb]

I have not heard this before regarding this debate. Do you have any citations regarding? And to the slashdeuschers that might respond to this, I know about Google and Wikipedia. You seem pretty knowledgeable about the topic, could you direct us/me to any sources that would be a good read? Thank you for the good post.

Re:Quite the opposite. Britains Experience

[AssholeMcGee]

I cannot give any citations on this!! I watched a special on WWII and the Brits used this method. It was very surprising to see them try this, considering the dislike they must have had towards Germany. This story has to be some where on the internet as well. I laughed when I heard it, but it seems to have truth to it..

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[elucido]

. It means asking questions, making in what you know" IS interrogation.

quiries.

Interrogation does not mean coercion.

But if interrogation includes coercion then it's not merely asking questions. If the person being questioned cannot leave until they answer it the right way then it's still considered interrogation and it's still considered fair game.

Do you not see the problems this can present? People will give the government any answer just so they can have an end to the interrogation. Psychologically speaking people in general do not like being interrogated.

.
It does not means making threats. It does not mean beating people up. It does not mean torture. It means asking questions

But the fact remains that it can include coercive questioning and there isn't any mechanism to prevent this from taking place. Do the people being interrogated have any rights? And even if they did would it matter if the Constitution is ignored?

.
Let me give you a few examples. Your neighbors get into a fight one night. It's 2AM and they're standing in the middle of the road screaming at each other. Someone calls the police. The police show up, separate the husband and wife, and take the man down to the station for questioning. The police use rather precise jargon for each step in the process. First, the police detain the husband. Detain, not arrest, because arrest means charging with a crime. They don't yet know if he should be charged, or she should be charged, but they will detain one or both. Detain means to hold. Detain does not mean arrest. Detain does not mean question. Detain does not mean handcuff, which brings up another term: restraints.

Next, the police transport him. In other words, they put him in the back of a police car and take him to the station. Then they interrogate him. They ask him questions. He doesn't need to answer, other than to identify himself.

At any point, they could have beat him. They could have beat him while they were detaining him. They could have beat him while they were putting him in the car. They could have beat him while they were asking questions. But none of the words mean beat; detain does not mean beat, transport does not mean beat, interrogate does not mean beat.

I know what the words mean. The fact is who is going to be looking if they did decide to beat him? Who is going to stop them if they beat some sense into him or try to force him to talk? You're assuming the police have to follow the laws when in reality if we are talking about intelligence agencies they don't have to follow the laws and that is why everyone gets terrified when they use the word "interrogation" because their forms of interrogation aren't the same as the law abiding forms.

.
The fact that two actions can happen at the same time does not make the words we use for those actions interchangeable. You can be tortured at the same time as you are being interrogated, and you can be eating a meal at the same time as you are being interrogated. Interrogation refers to the questioning, not the eating or torture.

Interrogation is the act of asking questions or inquiring.

The fact that it can happen and nothing is in place specifically to stop it from happening is why people are worried.concerned it could happen. The article is phrased with "advance the science of interrogation", and says it's what the FBI wants. The FBI also wants to and does ignore the Constitution as a layman would understand it. The FBI does not follow the Constitution during a time of war, and neither do the other intelligence agencies. If you look up the history of the FBI then you would understand why alarm bells ring when the FBI uses the word "interrogation".

And the fact that they want to advance the science of it, well who do they test these new techniques on and how do they intend to do that? No I don't trust intelligence agencies and neither should you. They are shady and always have been, and they always say they are doing it for our own good even when we are the suspect.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[zzatz]

Interrogation does not include coercion. I keep trying to explain that to you. All interrogation includes is asking questions. That's what the word means.

Should I worry about coercion? Of course. Should I worry about interrogation? No, ask away, I don't have to answer. Interrogation is not another word for coercion, interrogation does not include coercion. We have separate words for separate concepts.

The combination of interrogation with coercion is bad. Two separate words for two separate concepts. It's not the interrogation that makes the combination bad, it's the coercion. We don't have a name for that combination. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be precise, we need to use both words when describing that combination.

People are sloppy. Sometimes they misuse a word as shorthand for a longer description. Using "interrogation" as shorthand for "coerced interrogation" is a misuse. You can tell from context when people are misusing words like this, and if it isn't clear, you should assume the proper definition. When the FBI says "advance the science of interrogation", they mean that they want to know how to ask better questions. Asking questions is an art. Some people are better at it than others. The FBI would like to add a little science to that art, so they can train their people to ask questions that get them better answers. There's nothing wrong with that, there's no threat in that. I used to provide technical support to sales, so I went to many sales training classes. Some of those classes taught me how to ask better questions. What's wrong with getting a better understanding of what the customer needs?

Your concerns are legitimate. But you're using the wrong words for them. You shouldn't fear interrogation. You should fear beatings, coercion, and torture. It hurts when you are beaten during interrogation. But the interrogation doesn't hurt, it's the beating that hurts. You can be beaten without any questions being asked. That's not interrogation, that's just a beating. Please use the proper words. Don't say interrogation when you mean coercion. Don't say interrogation when you mean torture. Interrogation is not painful, interrogation is not harmful, interrogation is not evil, interrogation is not immoral. We have words for inflicting pain, words for causing harm, words for evil and words for immoral. Use those words when that's what you are talking about. When you use the wrong words, you enable those who commit evil to hide behind safe words. Don't call torture interrogation, call it torture. Don't call waterboarding interrogation, call it torture. Don't help evil bastards hide behind euphemisms, use the proper words. Interrogation is a word for a respectable activity. Don't use it for despicable actions, use the proper words that make it clear that the actions deserve contempt.

There are other ways people misuse language to enable evil. A reporter should not say that the suspect resisted arrest. That's an opinion, not a fact. The reporter should say that the suspect was injured while he was being arrested. That's a fact, not an opinion. The reporter should say that the suspect was charged with resisting arrest. That he was charged is a fact, and it doesn't assume that he is guilty of the charge. Maybe he did resist, maybe the injuries couldn't be avoided, or maybe a dirty cop took out his frustrations on the suspect. Sloppy language hides the injury, sloppy language assumes guilt, sloppy language enables dirty cops. Accurate, precise language makes facts available. That's what I'm asking for. Don't say interrogation when you mean something else.

Re:not sure why the negative comments

[elucido]

Interrogation does not include coercion. I keep trying to explain that to you. All interrogation includes is asking questions. That's what the word means.

Should I worry about coercion? Of course. Should I worry about interrogation? No, ask away, I don't have to answer. Interrogation is not another word for coercion, interrogation does not include coercion. We have separate words for separate concepts.

How do you explain interrogation when it does include coercion? And if it has happened in the past why should we believe authorities wont use coercion in the future? Are there different people in charge? Different laws?

The combination of interrogation with coercion is bad.

I'm glad we agree it's bad. How can we prevent this combination from occurring?

Two separate words for two separate concepts. It's not the interrogation that makes the combination bad, it's the coercion. We don't have a name for that combination. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be precise, we need to use both words when describing that combination.

There is also the problem that when you give so much power to so few people there probability of abuse increases. If coercion can happen it probably does, so how can we make it should it can't happen if we are serious about preventing it? We are talking about a government which knows everything about the person they are interrogating, knows every possible button they can push, it might not even look like coercion to anyone but the people asking the questions and the people doing the questioning so knowing whether or not it is or isn't coercion is very difficult.

People are sloppy. Sometimes they misuse a word as shorthand for a longer description. Using "interrogation" as shorthand for "coerced interrogation" is a misuse. You can tell from context when people are misusing words like this, and if it isn't clear, you should assume the proper definition. When the FBI says "advance the science of interrogation", they mean that they want to know how to ask better questions. Asking questions is an art. Some people are better at it than others. The FBI would like to add a little science to that art,

If the FBI knows everything about the person they are questioning then their question might be scientifically precise but it may not overtly be coercive. You or I might not know what is someones soft spot or trigger question but the FBI probably would know this. The FBI would know which words to use, how to say it, so that if coercion is involved it would look like it's not coercion. This is why people have a right to remain silent and probably shouldn't talk to the FBI in this scenario without a lawyer. The FBI can set traps in the questions themselves which could incriminate someone or they could ask questions which to the person receiving it might be perceived as a veiled threat. This is why it's not as simple as just knowing the semantics and trusting the FBI to be responsible as if they have a history of responsible behavior in those situations.

so they can train their people to ask questions that get them better answers. There's nothing wrong with that, there's no threat in that. I used to provide technical support to sales, so I went to many sales training classes. Some of those classes taught me how to ask better questions. What's wrong with getting a better understanding of what the customer needs?

The FBI does not treat suspects as customers and the FBI does not have to respect the suspects rights and in some situations the suspect really has no rights. So how can we trust an organization which through it's history has ignored human rights in order to get answers? Do you trust a corporation that has a really bad track record with customers?

Your concerns are legitimate. But you're using the wrong words for them. You shouldn't fear interrogation. You should fear beatings, co