Fred Wright — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:40:15 GMT

There is at least one other part of the federal government that has experience with interrogations: I was an interrogator for the US Army in Vienam. The army intrrogation course in 1969 emphasized that we did not use coercive techniques because 1) they produce very poor quality information and 2) a surprising portion of prople can’t be broken that way. We didn’t believe it and argued with the instructors over “real life” practices. But a year’s experience with prisoners convinced me that my instructors told the truth. I had the (appalling) experience of trying to get information from someone who had previously been beaten for it. Unless you know the exact right question and you know that he knows the answer, that is pretty near hopeless. He is so focused on not going through that again that you can’t get any sort of spontaeity or consideration from him.

As for the term “broken”, it does not mean physically broken. It is a technical term that just means that you have overcome his resistance. This usually just means that you asked some questions, he answered, and you got a conversation going. Getting a conversation going is about 90% of the trick. You have all the advantages and can take the discussion where you want it. Lies are easier to detect than you would think. Failure is not getting lied to so much as not getting responses.

The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com: Comments by Fred Wright