interrogation techniques

[newtron]

Are there effective interrogation techniques that are not considered to be torture or abuse?  What are they?  Obviously, if someone does not want to say something, asking nicely and saying "please" is not going to work.  I am not condoning torture or abuse.  I am just curious.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Well, according to the American Authorities at Guantanamo there's plenty of things that can be used but yet are not torture.

Donald Rumsf*** approved the use of "harsh" interrogation techniques at Guant�namo Bay, including stripping detainees naked, making them hold "stress" positions and prolonged sleep deprivation, according to the a senior Pentagon official back in May 2004.

Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defence for intelligence, also said severe interrogation techniques, including the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, had been approved for use by military commanders in Iraq.

Now, according to Amnesty (and indeed all but the most deluded, as far as I'm concerned) this does indeed - fanfare for the surprising factoid - constitue torture.

So the answer to your question is 'It depends who you ask as to what is considered torture'.

A more sane method of interogration, (which is based on a key part of Game Theory called 'The Prisoner's Dillema'  - do a Google and you'll find loads of explanations of this) is where you split up people suspected of a crime and interrogate them separately. The authority then says that if the prisoner admits the crime, the punishment will be less harsh. If the prisoner's companion admits the crime, however, the prisoner will receive a harsher sentence to reflect the lack of co-operation. The odds for either prisoner favour spilling the beans!

[Peter Pedant]

yes Newtron of course there are - people have always solved crimes and gained information and intelligence without pulling out the fingernails of the innocent.

Hard interrogation tecnics have been repeatedly discredited. Do you remember the Cyprus intelligence fiasco? Three squaddies admitted with no other evidence (because it was untrue, =geddit?) that they had attended 'splash' parties and given away secrets to a North Viet Madam, in Cyprus. (I kid you not)

Tenth day of the trial, in walks the North Viet woman and exclaims Arrest me! You say I am a spy! Arrest me! (honestly)

Collapse of trial - One squaddie was on Wogan to be asked why did you admit to things you knew were untrue?

These men were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We should have learnt from the irish terrorists of the seventies who all served long periods of time in Prison for crimes they did not do. - but they were Irish.

Terrible.

Let them out and let them go home.

[Dom Tuk]

Under caution a detainee in the Uk has the right to remain silent. However this silence can harm his/her defence in a court of law if he then says something else. It is here that other forms of evidence gathering can be useful. A pertinent case is if wire tapping evidence can become admissible as evidence. I think it is not and this could have changed things a bit as if the detainee realises that maybe his telephone conversations were available, he may cough out the truth.

To gather evidence, not for the purposes of a conviction, but to build intelligence data most western governments have shown recently they will turn a blind eye to a 3rd  country using torture to extract evidence. This evidence can help in building a picture and for intelligence purposes but can thankfully not be used in our shores as evidence in a court case.

 

I must admit it is a very sorry state of affairs.