I already mentioned this book in an earlier post related to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. But that is just one of the techniques suggested by the author who was an interrogator in Iraq. Here are some others:
(1) We Know All: “We have all the information and we can get you.” Tell the subject some bit of information that proves you know something. Entice him to reveal more to cross-check what you claim you already know.
(2) The Threat: “If you do not tell me something, I’m going to send you to Abu Gharib.” Self-explanatory.
(3) You’re Totally Screwed: “We control him. If he does not talk, he’s going to swing.” Self-explanatory too.
(4) Fear Down: “Show him the true consequences and then give him an out and become his savior.” e.g. Explain death penalty obtains for organizing terrorist attacks. Then say that if subject works with friendly interrogator to give information, all will be well.
(5) Love of Family: Reunite subject with loved family member and then use the (huge) favor you have granted to obtain information
(6) More broadly, Alexander suggests creating empathy and a cycle of mutual cooperation to get information.
Apart from (5), all are basically incentive based schemes used to either reward a subject for information (carrot) or punish him if he does not give information (stick).
What is not crystal clear in the book is whether the rewards promised (e.g. a lighter sentence) are actually ever granted. There is one case described in detail where one prisoner wants a divorce from young wife number two as she is too expensive. The interrogator draws up fake documents and pretends to start the divorce proceedings. He then gets information but sends the prisoner off to Abu Gharib anyway. This strongly suggests that the rewards offered are not ever given out. It’s not like a Mafia informant program where you go into witness protection after giving up the gang.
The prisoners are confused and tired so maybe this leads them to believe the interrogator’s promises. But can it really work on the truly committed senior terrorists? It’s pretty obvious where it’s all heading. Why give information, whether the interrogator uses empathy or fear, when you know your fate does not depend on what you say?
Cheap Talk 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 27, 2009 at 12:04 am
John Moore
The key to all of this is that the many interrogation techniques are intended to keep the prisoner from rationally considering his choices. In the simplest case, rapidly induced fear removes the time to think. More seriously, one uses sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation (or disorientation), and discomfort (cold, stress positions, etc) to keep the prisoner off balance mentally.
In other words, in many interrogations, the idea that the prisoner is capable of acting anywhere close to his perceived rational best interests is wrong.
July 28, 2009 at 12:04 pm
libfree
In regards to senior members being aware that deals won’t be kept. I think that the author suggested the reasons for this in the book. The political culture that the terrorists come from would allow “special deals” and even conspiracy type deals. Add to that the secretive nature of Abu Gharib. For all the person being interrogated knows, certain individuals are cutting deals and getting relocated in secret or more likely that payments or favors are offered to family.