[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus. Written by Steven Kleinman and Haviland Smith.]
Editor’s note: The authors both attended the June 24 conference cited below.
On June 24, Human Rights First published the following set of principles on torture and interrogation. The principles were put together during a two-day conference in Washington, D.C., by 15 former interrogators and senior intelligence officials with more than 350 years collective field experience in the military, the FBI and the CIA, spanning the period from World War II to Afghanistan and Iraq. They declared unanimously that torture is an “unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive” way to gather intelligence.
The officials stated the following:
“Non-coercive, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.
We reject torture and other inhumane, abusive interview techniques. We believe such techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive.
Use of these techniques has resulted in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence and serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. Use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment efforts, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the U.S. of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.
There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct to govern the detention and interrogation of people in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.
There is no conflict between adhering to our nation’s essential values, including respect for the inherent dignity of individuals, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.”
Of the 15 present, all but a few of them had been directly involved in the process of interrogation during their careers. All those who had been practitioners of interrogation agreed without exception or reservation with the above statement.
Interrogation is the process of obtaining intelligence and/or information from detainees. Over the many years it has been practiced by this country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, it has become clear that coercive interrogation techniques not only do not work, but are often counterproductive.
Once a detainee is in our custody, the process of successfully obtaining what intelligence he has, is at its very best, a process of seduction during which the detainee is developed as a potential source of information. This involves a solid understanding of what motivates the detainee and an ability to use that motivation to the interrogator’s advantage.
For anyone who has been involved in a seduction, it will be immediately clear that coercion simply will not work. What works is the exact opposite – a careful and thoughtful exchange of ideas and attitudes that will help the interrogator find a path to the desired intelligence.
Coercive techniques do not build mutual understanding, rapport and respect, the bases of successful interrogation. In the world of terrorism, terrorists are taught to expect that the United States will torture them. Coercive techniques of any sort will be confirmation of that expectation and will thus harden their resolve not to divulge anything of value. On the other hand, humane handling will be disarming and disorienting for any such detainee, leaving him open to non-coercive manipulation.
Careful, non-coercive handling of the detainee from the moment of his apprehension is critical. Once in our custody, if coercion of any sort of coercion is applied to a detainee, the likelihood of a subsequent non-coercive approach being successful is just about over.
The FBI has never sought permission to use coercion on its detainees simply because they know it does not work, and they can succeed without it. The same is true with the Pentagon for the same reason and also because military use of coercive methods it is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and invites torture when and if its own personnel are detained by an enemy.
When people are tortured they will tell the interrogator what they believe he wants to hear or lie, simply to put an end to the torture. That puts the interrogator at the mercy of the detainee. Misinformation and disinformation are logical, often dangerous outcomes of coercive techniques.
We are now often told that coercive interrogation has produced actionable information, however, some of what has been produced under torture may have been at best inaccurate and at worst, deliberately false.
There is no way of knowing what results could have been achieved if a detainee who has been tortured had been humanely handled with non-coercive interrogation techniques from the moment of his capture. Such detainees often have the kind of massive, messianic ego that is easily manipulated by a really good interrogator.
Finally, there is the question of who we Americans really are. It is simply inconsistent with everything we say we stand for to indulge in coercive interrogation techniques. Even if they worked, which they do not, what kind of nation have we become in the eyes of the rest of the world as practitioners of torture? That is not an image that is likely to produce significant intelligence, let alone promote our worldwide interests.
Steven Kleinman is a military intelligence officer with 25 years of operational and leadership experience in human intelligence and special operations. He served as an interrogator in three major military campaigns in addition to teaching advanced interrogation and resistance to interrogation courses.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff.
