Torture is for amateurs

The film "Zero Dark Thirty," a fictionalized account of the hunt for
Osama Bin Laden, has refueled the debate about the efficacy of harsh
interrogation techniques. After facing harsh criticism from both
Democrats and Republicans, the film, which was nominated for five
Academy Awards, had a poor showing at the Oscars last night as well,
winning only the award for Best Sound Editing in a rare tie with the
James Bond film "Skyfall."

Director Kathryn Bigelow's film "Zero Dark Thirty" presents torture as
a necessary and effective method of extracting information from
prisoners and an essential tool used by the Central Intelligence
Agencyto find bin Laden. Though many in the intelligence community
said the film portrayal of torture yielding the information key to
getting bin Laden is inaccurate, most viewers come away with the
impression that "enhanced interrogation" not only works – but that it
can be vital.

For the military interrogators I interviewed who have questioned
hundreds of detainees in Afghanistan andIraq, nothing could be further
from the truth.

As part of a recent study about military interrogations techniques, I
spoke to many human intelligence (HUMINT) collectors. Through an
online survey, 143 active-duty reserve, and retired military
interrogators were asked them how they performed their jobs. These men
and women, who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan,
were also asked to rate the effectiveness of a variety of
interrogation techniques.

With the exception of one member of the sample, these interrogators
uniformly agreed that torture and other harsh methods were worth
little when trying to gather accurate human intelligence. The majority
of study participants stated a strong dislike of violence in
interrogations and asserted time and again that if the direct
questioning of a detainee failed, building rapport was the most
effective way to collect information from a human subject. As one
study participant wrote, "Torture is for amateurs."

Official Army policy supports this view as well. The US military's
interrogation bible, the Army Human Intelligence Collector Operations
Field Manual, advises human intelligence collectors that the direct
approach – asking a subject a direct question – has been historically
shown to work with 90 percent or more of interrogation subjects.

The manual also advises that all human intelligence collection begins
with the direct approach. In addition, a rapport-building strategy "is
an integral part of the approach phase." While sometimes
time-consuming, interrogators in my study endorsed rapport building as
the most effective approach for evoking accurate intelligence from a
prisoner.

The historical record also refutes the idea that torture "works."
Hanns Scharff, a legendary German interrogator who is the subject of a
book by military writer Raymond Toliver, cited preparation not
violence as the surest way to procure intelligence from an enemy
prisoner of war.

From Mr. Toliver's book, "The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim
Scharff: Master Interrogator of theLuftwaffe", we learn that Scharff,
who primarily questioned downed US pilots, used guile and charm to
evoke information from an interrogatee. Scharff, who was referred to
as "The Master," championed rapport building. And he was so successful
at building relationships with American POWs that after World War II
concluded, he reunited with some of his former interrogation subjects
in the United States.

The participants in my study also emphasized the importance of
preparation in conducting a successful interrogation. One study
participant asserted that the most critical part of any interrogation
is the creation of an interrogation plan. Before an interrogator
enters the interrogation booth, he or she learns as much as possible
about the interrogation subject. Interrogators indicated to me that
poor preparation produced poor interrogations that usually yielded
information of little or no value.

Every interrogation is different, as is every interrogation subject.
Not all strategies work for all people and sometimes interrogators
have little information with which to prepare. But the subjects of my
study overwhelmingly agreed that if violence entered the interrogation
booth, the interrogation was a failure.

The majority of them emphasized that human connections, not physical
abuse, insured the greatest likelihood of success during an
interrogation. Interrogators in my study argued that an offer of a
cigarette, a joke, or a discussion of religious beliefs produced
greater results than waterboarding, beatings, or sleep deprivation.
One interrogator reported that if "the interrogator, the interpreter
and the subject were laughing together, information [was] generally
more reliable."

Rapport building can also be effective with high-value targets. One
active duty Army interrogator, with 19 years of human intelligence
collecting experience wrote: "Hardened terrorists we capture expect
physical and verbal abuse. When we offer a cup of tea instead it takes
them out of their comfort zone." An Air Force reservist of 26 years,
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported this view. He indicated
that "establishing trust and rapport through displays of cultural
finesse and the appearance of genuine concern for the detainee" is the
most effective practice.

The interrogators I spoke with present a very different picture from
the one portrayed in the film "Zero Dark Thirty." The film may be a
cinematic triumph, its disappointing Oscar showing aside, but one of
its central messages could not be further from the truth. Torture
doesn't work. Just ask interrogators.

Matthew D. Semel, J.D., Ph.D. is assistant professor of criminal
justice at St. Thomas Aquinas College in Sparkill, N.Y.

csmonitor