Sources Holler Back: Part II
And here's more hollering back, this time from longtime CIA polygrapher John Sullivan. John's got a problem with my portrayal of FBI interrogations.
Dear Spencer,
Re your comments on FBI interrogators:
Comparing CIA interrogations with FBI interrogations is comparing apples with oranges. The overwhelming majority of FBI interrogations are done on criminal suspects who have been arrested. More importantly, most of these interrogations are done on individuals in whose language and culture the FBI interrogator is well versed. In most cases, the interrogator has a lot of biographical data on his Subject, criminal record (if any) and can fake relating to or identifying with his Subject. There is also leverage. There can be real negotiation between an FBI interrogator and his Subject, i.e. a reduction in sentence or even a "walk."
One can not compare this type of interrogation with a CIA interrogation of a terrorist or Jihadist. Most of these interrogations have to be done through an interpreter. There is a basic lack of understanding of the history and culture of the Subjects that severely limits the effectiveness of such interrogations.
In your article, you made no mention of Michael Koubi, the legendary Israeli interrogator. May I refer you to Mark Bowden's interview, "The Truth About Torture," that appeared in the September 11, 2003 Atlantic Monthly and his related article, "The Dark Art of Interrogation," that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in October 2003. If I wanted to learn something about interrogating Arabs, Israel is the first place I would go.
My point wasn't to say that CIA shouldn't conduct interrogations, nor that CIA had nothing to learn from places like Israel about how to conduct interrogations. It was, rather, that the brutality stemmed from ignorance, and the neglect of precisely the sorts of interrogations that Sullivan conducted at CIA. Bowden's pieces are interesting, but they do suffer from some post-9/11 enthusiasm for what he euphemistically refers to as "smacky-face." In a subsequent piece about the hunting of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Bowden reports about a successful pursuit of a terrorist that didn't involve torture. It would have been helpful if Bowden tried to reconcile his two pieces.
But Sullivan, of course, is an opponent of torture, so I'm not exactly sure what he means by citing the 2003 Bowden articles. (Hopefully this post will prompt yet more hollering back!) His FBI point is a good one. But can't it be overcome? You can foresee a situation where CIA interrogators could offer inducements to detainees -- movement to a prison in the U.S. where they'll receive due process, or something that I can't think of but smart lawyers can. Similarly, like I said to my previous source, it's true that we have to do most interrogations through translation, but that just speaks to my piece's broader point of how parlous the state of CIA interrogation is in. Maybe the agency should consider extra inducements or the relaxation of standards for Arab-Americans or Americans of backgrounds relevant to human-intelligence gathering/interrogation in the war on terrorism.
In fact what are those inducements? What are those standards? Sounds like something I should report on further.
Comments:
Posted 01/29/2008 12:18pm with
“More importantly, most of these interrogations are done on individuals in whose language and culture the FBI interrogator is well versed.” Well, the FBI was able to find an Arabic-speaker to interrogate Saddam. And it worked. Shouldn’t the CIA be able to do the same?
Posted 01/29/2008 01:19pm with
His point about criminal vs. intelligence interrogations is an important one, as well. When you’re looking for a confession, you gear your questioning in that direction. When you want intel, you couldn’t really care less about whether the guy incriminates himself. you’re just trying to get him to drop the dime on his associates, preferably those higher than him. These two spheres obviously have substantial overlap, but as a mindset, it’s a completely different ballgame.
Posted 01/29/2008 02:16pm with
I think the issue is getting good answers about whatever your subject is, whether it’s a confession or useful intel. And torture is good for getting all sorts of confessions and information about stuff that isn’t real and didn’t happen. You use it to terrorize not just the individual subject, but all the people in the community the subject comes from. Torture isn’t there to get information.
If I want someone to tell me what’s actually true, I talk to them. If I have something I want them to say whether it’s true or not, I might bribe them, or I could use torture.
Skilled interogators don’t use torture – the people who do that are called “torturers”.
Posted 01/29/2008 03:42pm with
Avedon,
Of course you’re correct. I was merely drawing attention to the practical difference between criminal and intelligence interrogations. Torture should never enter the picture either way.