Interrogation Techniques
Friday's New York Times published a glossary of interrogation techniques for detainees from the Army's standard field manual.
What struck me about it was how the entries for the interrogation techniques seemed to describe the MO for the various political interview and discussion shows on television.
Consider the following examples:
EMOTIONAL APPROACH The "emotional love" variation relies on engaging feelings for family, homeland or comrades. The "emotional hate" variation focuses on a detainee's "genuine hate, or possibly a desire for revenge"; the manual states, "This approach is usually most effective on a member of a racial or religious minority who has suffered discrimination in both service and civilian life."
[The "emotional love" approach is distinctive of ABC News. Think Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer and Ted Koppel. Think also Aaron Brown. The "emotional hate" approach is common to Fox News.]
PRIDE AND EGO In the "up approach," the interrogator, using a "flattering somewhat-in-awe tone of voice," speaks highly of the detainee and the information he can reveal. In the "down approach," the interrogator plays on a detainee's sense of inferiority.
[Think Hannity and Colmes. Both flatter their favorite guests to the skies, and Hannity enjoys demeaning the guests he dislikes before asking any questions.]
FUTILITY This approach, used to make a detainee believe it is useless to resist, is "most effective when the interrogator can play on doubts that already exist in the source's mind."
'ESTABLISH YOUR IDENTITY' The interrogator pretends the detainee is actually an infamous criminal facing very serious charges and is trying to pose as someone else. In order to refute these accusations, the detainee may disclose details about his unit or operations.
[For these two, consider the O'Reilly Factor]
FILE AND DOSSIER APPROACH Interrogators confront the detainee with a dossier that they claim includes everything significant about the detainee. The field manual suggests the file "may be padded with extra paper, if necessary."
[Meet the Press with Tim Russert uses a similar method, with random quotes, charts, excerpts of articles and poll numbers.]
RAPID FIRE One or more interrogators may be involved in this approach, in which questions are fired so quickly that the detainee does not have time to answer before the next question is asked. This is intended to lead to contradictory answers; in trying to straighten out the confusion, the detainee is likely to disclose more information.
[Think Hardball with Chris Matthews or Crossfire.]
The following are common to all the shows:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION This could include using loud music and bright lights to disorient detainees.
INCENTIVE Rewards for cooperation. This can include giving detaines things to which they are already entitled. The field manual notes, "This can be effective only if the source is unaware of his rights or privileges."
INCENTIVE REMOVAL Taking away privileges from an uncooperative detainee. "Interrogators may not withhold a source's rights under the Geneva Conventions," the manual says.
[The shows use "incentive" and "incentive removal" with guests who are not politically prominent. The incentive is to be invited back on the show to raise one's profile. They use the incentive to get the person to say what they want to hear.]
The manual does not mention "sexual humiliation" as a legitimate technique. In this respect, the talk shows use methods that not even the Army would officially endorse.
If you're someone like me, you long for a more elevated political discourse -- something like what you see on the BBC: genuine dialogue aimed at communication and getting at the truth; thoughtful, poignant questions, delivered respectfully and unadorned by emotional sentiment, with the interviewee being allowed to respond fully to the question asked; no sycophancy , schmaltz, bullying, intimidation, slandering, or "gotcha" tests.
That is, if you're someone like me, you're silly enough to think there's a principled difference between an interview and an interrogation.
5:04:43 PM 
|
