How An Interrogator Developed a Humane Method That Worked
The Washington Post has an article from veteran military interrogator Matthew Alexander (not his real name). While in Iraq, Alexander became disillusioned by some of the methods being employed to get information out of detainees there, namely: torture. He went on to develop an alternative method where he and his team developed a rapport with the detainees in order to gain their trust and make it easier to draw information out of them. The method worked and ended up leading to the killing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006.
It’s an excellent read, and a shining example of how interrogation could be done without the military or CIA resorting to some of the ugliest tactics there are. What I consider the moneyquote of the article comes when Alexander is discussing having just heard about the waterboarding conducted by the CIA:
I know the counter-argument well — that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that’s not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn’t, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That’s why I decided to cooperate.”
Remember all that stuff about capturing the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? Seems like someone tried to employ that goal, and it worked. Alexander goes on to mention that General David Patraeus put together a similar program with the Anbar Awakening. Last time I checked, that’s done pretty well, too.
I think these examples are a strong argument about how information can be gotten without compromising the moral code that has made the United States into one of the most respected countries throughout the years.
(H/T Andrew Sullivan)
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
