We Have Ways of Making You Talk
Essays, Featured — By Jordan Green on February 3, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Long before I came to edit this site, I enlisted in the Army.
When you enlist, there are a number of jobs you can choose from. These are called MOS’s, or Military Occupational Specialties, because the US military never says anything simply. I didn’t want to be a truck driver or an infantryman, so I picked 97B, or US Army Counterintelligence Agent. It sounded super awesome.
And while it wasn’t nearly as cool as it sounds, it wasn’t a bad job. When we were doing work, it was fun, and felt worthwhile and important. I got out of the Army before I had to deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq, but I did have the honor of serving a half year in Bosnia. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and I genuinely felt part of a good mission, an example of American military might coming to the aid of a threatened people (in the case of Bosnia, the victims were, to a large extent, Muslim).
Because of the similar nature of our work, and because sometimes our jobs just outright overlapped, we were closely associated and often trained with Interrogators (who went by the nomenclature 97E). The requirements for being a 97E included fluency in a foreign language, and they typically focused on a more adversarial tone of gathering information, where CI Agents were more intent on, to put it simply, making friends. From what I’ve heard, things are different now, and the two jobs have merged, but I don’t really know.
While Military Intelligence is admittedly near the bottom of the totem pole when it comes the intelligence community, and I may be completely naive to the goings on at covert levels within three-letter agencies, there seemed to be one overriding truth regarding interrogation of captives: building rapport. In every lesson I learned, from my initial training to real world experience to seminars taught by Israeli interrogation experts, it was accepted doctrine that information was gathered through building a relationship with the captor. It wasn’t that torture was frowned upon, or even that it went against the Geneva Convention…torture, or any other physical means of extracting information, is not an effective method in interrogation.
So over the last ten years, I was stunned to learn how physical coercion had crept back into the US interrogation playbook. It’s one thing for life or death scenarios to play out on film, or on shows like 24, but anyone with a shred of experience in these scenarios understands the ticking time bomb is a storytelling tool, not based in any fact.
Still, because the national conversation was steered in that direction, the debate raged over questions about whether waterboarding was torture, or if torture was justified if it saved American lives. The paradigm became one of hawkish realists versus pie-in-the-sky pansies, but occasionally I’d hear an intelligence expert on some news station, bewildered, ask, Why is this even a question? These methods do not work. and I’d think, “Maybe I’m not crazy after all.”
Count today’s NPR story on thwarted Christmas Day terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a win for the good guys. Despite cries of outrage from pundits who market fear, interrogators have been pulling valuable information from the 23 year-old Nigerian man, at least some of which aided in the arrest of 10 people in Malaysia last week. The report claims interrogators have established a good rapport and played off Abdulmutallab’s insecurities.
One former official familiar with the case said he believes Abdulmutallab is talking because he wants to show that he fully intended to martyr himself on that Christmas Day flight and he is trying to convince authorities that the plan to do so was meticulous and well thought out.
Now that’s some interrogation. I mean, this is the youngest of 16 children fathered by one of the richest men in Nigeria, a 23 year-old who readily embraced blowing himself up in the name of religious fanaticism…do you think he might have some insecurities? Do you think he might want attention? Do you think investigators could treat him respectfully and exploit those insecurities and daddy issues to learn more about potential terrorists? Or, on the other hand, they could shoot him in the kneecap, make him think he’s drowning, and scream, “WHERE’S THE BOMB!?!?!” over and over in the huskiest voice they can muster. Six of one, half dozen of the other…
22 Comments
Very well said.
When it comes to Gitmo and waterboarding, I do wonder why it was carried out. If you and several others who have some experience in that area say it’s a no-brainer, then “why are we doing this?” is a very valid question. Surely, they have a reason. I would love to hear their rationale.
@James:
I thought about this today, and you raise a good point…I mean, being a low-ranking enlisted CI Agent hardly makes me any sort of expert.
I think it stems from a different philosophical viewpoint, of course…some people may just believe torture is effective.
And, honestly, maybe it is. I mean, how could they even quantify that sort of thing?
But it comes down to the bigger picture. If you torture, it’s feasible an interrogator MIGHT get information more quickly. But three problems arise:
1) The captive may give misinformation in order to stop the physical intimidation or harm.
2) The information is limited to what is being asked about.
When a trust and rapport between a captive and interrogators is built, the information may be slower in coming, but once those floodgates open, they’re open to a lot of things. A captive may freely give information interrogators don’t even think to ask for if they trust the person conducting the interview. If they are psychologically broken, they would also be more willing to give accurate info.
Lastly, and possibly most important, there’s the issue of what torture does to morale on both sides. Growing up, torture was something the Soviets did, or the Iraqis…Americans didn’t do that sort of thing, because we were Good. So when you learn your nation is doing these things, that you’re not as holy and humane as you believed, it’s horrifying. An opposing force, especially one so rooted in moralism as extremist Muslims, can use that as propaganda.
Besides philosophical reasons, I think the insinuation of privatized defense contractors into the fray has been part of the problem. Some reports claim they were the ones doing using physical methods, and I think operating as a paid civilian allows one to skirt legal and ethical standards to some extent.
I’d be interested to hear your opinion, James, being a fellow soldier, but I’m opposed to almost all privatized companies in a theater of operation, with the exception of kitchen staff (because the food is better) and translators. Obviously, companies like Brown & Root have value outside of that (for instance, supplying jobs to local workers, alleviating claims of occupation), but I’m with Eisenhower in believing the Military Industrial Complex is a bad thing.
I want to emphasize that I am not in any way supportive of torture or waterboarding or rough interrogation techniques. My post was more of a question than an assertion. Surely, someone real smart is at the top levels, and they have to have some reason. I just can’t imagine what it is.
I haven’t done what you did, of course, but as a Military Policeman (95B), I was present when people were questioned about crimes. One guy was accused of attempted rape, a very difficult thing to prove, but the guy asking him questions was very skilled, and alternatively acted like his friend, then got all hard-ass when he felt the need. The guy fessed up, got a couple of years. It was amazing to witness. No torture required.
As for your last point, I agree. The fewer contractors involved in any military operation, the better. The temptation for benefiting financially is just too strong for many people.
BTW, your main point in the third-to-last paragraph is huge. We Americans shouldn’t torture because we’re above that. Period. No other reason needed.
For the record, I didn’t think you were advocating torture. You simply raised the excellent question of, “If it’s widely accepted that torture is ineffective, then why would people still be proponents of its use?”
I don’t think the answer is as simple as “Dick Cheney is a super villain” or “People think Jack Bauer is a real person”, so I have to assume it works, at least on some level.
I mean, if someone shot my kneecaps, I’d probably tell them everything I know.
Thanks for both of your interesting and insightful thoughts.
I’m going to go waaay out on a limb here. I wonder if there’s a psychospiritual component to all this. It sounds like the accused rapist and the airplane bomber had similar operations: dehumanize others. They had vastly different reasons for their behavior, but the common theme is they were both hurting deeply.
I’ve studied (informally) addiction recovery a fair bit, and I see that the fact that I haven’t stopped eating cookies today and I just pulled a beer out of the fridge is because I had a couple of very draining events happen at work today. I don’t know that I’ve stepped from use to misuse or abuse of these goodnesses or not.
But the connection is, some of us step from misusing food or alcohol to really wanting to mess other people up to feel powerful or to make ourselves feel better somehow (serotonin release for the rapist or the same for the bomber because he was doing something worthwhile for a cause much bigger than himself). But their impulses led them to harm others. Key question: What if the interrogator is merely a counselor who gets sociopaths (“terrorists” or otherwise) to process why the heck they’re destroying lives, through friendship, conversation, and humane community.
This is a huge stretch, I know. But it may just provide a model for how we move forward in helping restore all of God’s good creation.
In my previous line of work I did “interviews”. That’s the term we used instead of interrogations. It was very interesting work although kmew it wasn’t something I wanted to do as I grew older, at least not for corporate America. Sometimes I play with the idea again but as I said, if I did ever go into that line of work again, I wouldn’t want to for corporate America but something that I felt had more rewards for me beyond corporate America. And they did reward us, the money was good and the job itself (camaraderie and feeling you did some good) was rewarding, just like I said, I would like to get more involved in other things like maybe abducted children (happens alot in my state) and other areas. If I could afford to, I feel I would do so for free.
Considering I worked for Corporate America I tried to get them to confess to as much as possible so I could recover back as much, and also those rollover cases (rat on others). If you played that part right, you could walk into a location with one interview as an objective and finish off with a few, all on those rollover cases.
Anyway, I found the more humane approached more effective. I also don’t look very threatening, but was good at what I did and played on that. Now I knew another gal who used a more aggressive manner of interviewing and it seemed to work for her. And the company “I” did train with was one of the best in the nation and trained alot of law enforcement agencies, including at the federal level.
Anyway, what you described at the end was a tactic that I used and was effective in this sense-looking beyond the surface. In other words, I didn’t look to emphasize in a hard and threatening way what they did, but looked to engage them in a conversation as to why, and helping them save face. I allowed them to tell their story and even with this tactic I could tell sometimes that story was not quite truthful but as long as they were confessing I didn’t care why they told me was the underlying factor of them doing it. It’s quite effective but no, it doesn’t work on everyone. After awhile you learn personalities and if I wasn’t familiar with them I would ask their managers what type of person they were. That helped me to see if a colder interview may work or if I was better off waiting to build a better case, amongst other things. Cultural aspects played in too.
Anyway, threats and promises were not something we wanted to engage in for the aspect of someone confessing to something not because it is the truth but to avoid punishment, or gain a reward. We also were on a general timeframe because you keep someone in a room long enough they may confess to things just to get it over with and get out of there.
Anyway, we had a great system implemented and it really helped me to see from different angles. We had what we called the “Triad”, our own Trinity so to speak. It was made up of my DM, the manager’s DM, and Human Resource DM. Anytime I was going to interview someone I had to talk to all three and get two out of three to buy-in, and also when I closed a case too. It was neat getting the different views from various departments and their area of specialty. God has used my workplace (as I am sure he has with others) to teach me much regarding scriptural references like how his body works, various roles, and such.
One thing I will say is that I know unless you are privileged to all the details, it can be hard to understand why someone may use a route that appears to be harsh. We also tend to judge with our short-sightedness. Like we can read the bible and think God was really hard in the old testament, I mean he would tell his people don’t even leave an animal alive. We can sit back and say, “Man, that’s harsh, what kind of love is that?” We don’t understand the severity of sin. Look what one act of disobedience did. Sin is deep-seated and far-reaching and like a virus that continues to spread, will infect all that come into contact with it. We don’t get it because He has been holding sin from fully blooming in society but one day that will change and we will see ever clearly that the only good that exists, exists because of him. We will see how very different the Light is from the darkness. If in those days that is what it took to save the bloodline of those entrusted with his Word, promises, birthing Messiah, etc, then the end justifies the means. Only God sees it all and knows those who are his, and those who are not. He’s God, He adminsters justice perfectly and filtered through his love. Sometimes we are more compassionate to human beings than the Lord and his greater cause that does have humans at heart. His love isn’t selfish.
Anyway, what I found too was that people’s attention is usually drawn when there is a commotion and you have to use more force to control a situation. People don’t see the behind the scenes stuff. They miss that this person just took a swing at you or threatened you with a weapon. What gets there attention is when you are looking to restrain a person and the person is screaming, “Help, abuse, I’m pregnant, I’m pregnant.” Oh gosh, we had some doozies and you had to be careful too because some of the onlookers think you are the bad guy, so to speak, and may look to get involved and try to restrain you. And that’s what some were aiming for. This was a problem for the brothers of color. Some tend to be quick to assume that they are the bad ones. It was interesting to say the least.
Some people are really hardened and won’t think twice of cutting you with a razor or whatever else, and think it is funny.
I guess what I am trying to say with those stories is that unless you have all the details (or at least a good deal of it), the end may not look like it justifies the means. Unless we see beyond the micro view to the macro view, the end may not seem like it justifies the means.
I don’t care to torture people either and it can be from this end, hard to understand what would justify that but this has been an area that has been under discussion for awhile and if still engaging in it, their are probably some reasons that they see are valid and they feel justifies it.
When I think of these suicide bombers there is a part of me that admires them in the sense of, “Wow, they may be deceived but these people are truly dedicated to their god and cause.” How many of us are willing to be that living sacrifice when called for? Anyway, I don’t doubt insecurities and carnal nature has its role in these things too. We can’t just rule that out. I just wonder if his reason for confessing was to (or at least also to) reveal that he wasn’t just some dude looking to hurt people but was aiming for a greater cause that he himself was willing to die for. Sounds like that may have been part of it, even if it seems he may wanted to have impressed too with the details. But I don’t know for sure. I am also quite unfamiliar with the case (I got to get me one of those digital boxes as I cancelled my cable so kinda out of the loop), though think I did catch wind of some of it somewhere.
Love in Him,
Jo
Jo, you said “anyway” six times.
What you talking about? Dat wasn’t me dude. I don’t care if my name is on it and sounds like me. I’m taking the fifth and want a lawyer. Yea, dat’s right. I was framed I tell ya, I was framed.
I know my rights.
I really, really hope you are doing a Michael Scott imperonsation here, and not just being oddly racist.
One more, one more!
True story.
I used to joke that the reason why they would confess to me was to shut me up.
I had my own torture technique.
But I had a good rap too, if I say so myself. I thought so anyway.
Over and out.
Jo
You all are a tough audience, but it’s ok, I love ya.
This is child’s play compared to some things I been through and had to deal with.
I did want to come back and mention this Jordan. Not sure if I totally understand what you are getting at but if I do I think I see where you are coming from in this comment, yet have something else to add.
Quote:
“Besides philosophical reasons, I think the insinuation of privatized defense contractors into the fray has been part of the problem. Some reports claim they were the ones doing using physical methods, and I think operating as a paid civilian allows one to skirt legal and ethical standards to some extent.
I’d be interested to hear your opinion, James, being a fellow soldier, but I’m opposed to almost all privatized companies in a theater of operation, with the exception of kitchen staff (because the food is better) and translators. Obviously, companies like Brown & Root have value outside of that (for instance, supplying jobs to local workers, alleviating claims of occupation), but I’m with Eisenhower in believing the Military Industrial Complex is a bad thing.”
Jordan, again, not sure if I get it all but wanted to say this. Some of the hardest things I had to deal with in my line of work was the inside political bull and people looking out for themselves. Their interest, their promotions, etc. I was blessed to have some wonderful bosses and some being believers too. Yet I also ran across what it is like not to have that (not that I am perfect myself) and have coworkers more interested in their self-interest. That is one of the big reasons why I don’t care to do it again in Corporate America, because if I am going to have to deal with that crap again (along with self-sacrifices on your time, etc), the cause would have to be more worth it to me. I did for a long time but as I said, knew I didn’t want to do the work as I grew older, at least not for corporate America.
So, even as those on the inside may have a better grasp to a degree, I don’t doubt those things factor in on the inside too.
Love in Him,
Jo
Sorry, I should have stated this too to make it more clear: Even those on the inside will use unethical means in order to serve their own self-interest. How the military looks to safeguard from that, dunno.
Been going back to address some issues that may have arisen due to the re-arranging of some posts. I see Emily’s last post (Feb 5, 2:15pm) was moved up. I personally don’t see where that may have effected the conversation yet it does seem to disrupt the natural order of things. I don’t know for sure but maybe it was done to ensure others didn’t miss it and understood what it applied to. Call me a dreamer but I tend to believe in allowing the natural order of things (beyond God doing it that is and realize God may have been speaking to others) to take place. I think we can trust God to enlighten and emphasize to each what he wants without disrupting the natural order of things. Maybe he would have some miss it. But it’s not my call, just sharing.
I also wanted to say if my comment was offensive to anyone, I do apologize now. If you go back to other areas and see how I used bad grammar (or should I say extra bad grammar beyond my usual bad grammar) it may help. With that said, when someone brings to attention what may be something amiss with me, I do like to take it to the Lord to see if there may be some validity to it or not. Whether that was the case or not, I do apologize now if it caused any unnecessary offense or pain.
I do want to ask, “Why would anyone think my attempt at light banter and humor may be racist?”
Because I am not looking to weave a web that others may fall into, or look to have them fall in a ditch, I do want to say that there is a ditch in front of that question so do think about what I am asking before you take a step.
Love in Him,
Jo
I appreciate your article. I was in the Army in a different time and a different war (which I do no want to talk about). I agree with 70% of what you said, but I also disagree. There is a time, a reason, and a place for forced interogation.
What would those time and good reasons be?
I mispoke in my last sentance. I ment, there is time, and at times good reasons, for inhanced interrogation.
Jordon,
In certian combat situation where the safety of my men, large loss of life, or a specific crisis situation dictates.
jg,
I can’t really argue with you on that: if taking one enemy combatant’s life, or torturing him, will save the lives of multiple people, how could we choose any other way?
I generally believe that scenario is a false paradigm, but it guess it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Even then, it’s crossing a line I don’t think should be crossed. Theoretically, American soldiers put their lives on the line to preserve certain values, and humane treatment of prisoners is one of those values.
When you factor in Christianity, I can’t see that torture is ever, ever an option.
As I said, I do agree with the bulk of what you had to say on this issue. However, in the world we now live in the scenario is not as far fetched as it used to be. We used to have a clear idea who our enemy was (Germany, Japan, North Vietnam ect) but that is not the case anymore. Things are much more static. In Vietnam we learned that even children could be combatants. As a Christian I have never been put in that place (and pray I never will), so I cannot be as certian about what I would do. Take care.
Thanks, JG! I hope we never are, either…
Jordan, I found this is a very interesting, important read. I value your honesty and perspective on this issue. Good stuff.