The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.
While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.
Some of the study participants argue that interrogation should be restructured using lessons from many fields, including the tricks of veteran homicide detectives, the persuasive techniques of sophisticated marketing and models from American history.
The science board critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by current and former government officials. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, sent a letter to troops this month warning that “expedient methods” using force violated American values.
In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.
But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.
My first response to this was positive, at least from the standpoint that current methods of "enhanced interrogation" are not only immoral but ineffective. Then I started to worry that the powers that be will take this more as a message that waterboarding isn't enough, and we need to develop more "effective" techniques, maybe the kind applied during the Argentine Dirty War of the 1970s and 80s or by the KGB in the 1960s. Hopefully the former.A little FYI, the term "enhanced interrogation" that we heard bandied about by the Republican nominees (save for the notable dissent of McCain and Paul) originates with the Nazis. In German the phrase is "Verschärfte Vernehmung" or "sharpened interrogation." Here is a link if you're interested. In the interest of disclosure, the link is to a blog at the Atlantic Monthly. Take it as you will.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html
For the NYT story, go here:
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30interrogate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
2 comments:
The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
We shouldn't torture anyone to gain information, especially when there is more than ample evidence that torture more often than not provides false information (a person who has something to hide will give misleading or false information, or remain silent - an innocent person may well say whatever the hell you want them to say in order to get you to stop). I am on-board with McCain and Paul on this completely. I was surprised to hear the answers given by the other candidates in the Republican debates. Torture seems to be more popular than ever, Pope Innocent IV would be proud (he issued the Papal Bull advocating torture on May 15, 1252).
And "enhanced interrogation" is merely political double-speak for torture and we all know that. We should not engage in such practices, period.
Now, not to borrow from the Nazi handbook, but the most effective and renowned interrogator they had (and arguably one of the best in the business) was a fellow by the name of Hanns-Joachim Scharff, an Obergefreiter in the Luftwaffe who specialized in interrogating captured American fighter pilots.
The secret to his success was not to use torture, stress techniques, or physical violence of any sort. In fact, exactly the opposite. He went out of his way to be kind, to make his subjects comfortable and feel as safe as possible. He understood that the vast majority of the prisoners you take won't have actionable, useful intelligence that can be used immediately... the bits and pieces they do have, however, can be used to put together a larger, strategic picture that can be useful in the long term.
Through casual conversation, he used simple Holmsian deduction and little bits of psychological sleight-of-hand to glean enormous amounts of useful intelligence, even from subjects who actively tried to resist. And as I understand it, he was never known to have ever raised his voice in the presence of a prisoner.
And despite his effectiveness, and the fact that the intel he gleaned might very well have cost the lives of hundreds of allied airmen, the very prisoners he interrogated helped endorse his application for U.S. Citizenship after the war! The U.S. Air Force even hired him to instruct them in his techniques and first-hand experiences.
So why oh why have we abandoned the teachings of the man the intelligence community calls the Master of the craft?
Perhaps it’s the cultural divide? Scharff had the luxury of honing his techniques on a single nationality: American pilots. Maybe it’s just extremely difficult for a westerner to engage in lengthy, casual conversation with the vast array of nationalities and ethnicities we face to pickup on the nuances of their speech that would lend to gleaning useful information.
Which means we really need to be pouring resources into building a specialized corp of culturally savvy interrogators that can use non-violent techniques that work. The fight against Islamic extremism isn’t going to go away anytime soon, so the sooner we can start developing these skills, the better. It should have been done already.
Post a Comment