| Modern warfare has ushered into existence a judicial and ethical dilemma for those entities in authority. Throughout the world, governing authorities are faced with the task of prosecuting law officials and military personnel on human right violations stemming from physical and psychological abuse of prisoners. The issue of justifying acts of torture has become prominent enough that U.S. governing officials have rewritten key literature, such as the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, in order to define the very nature of torture. The military of the 21st century has a new way of dealing with war criminals – turn them into allies. Historically, torture techniques have been used to gain confessions of crimes and critical counter-intelligence. Television programs, such as ‘24’ depict scenes and scenarios of the inhumane techniques used against suspected criminals. Detective Mark Fuhrman, of O.J. Simpson Trial notoriety, boasted and bragged to writer Laura McKinney of the outright abuse he had witnessed and taken part in during his years on the Los Angeles police force (Fuhrman, 1995). America received a black eye in 2004 when video tapes revealed the harsh, degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison under the hands of U.S. Army personnel. The Innocence Project (2009), a non-profit organization, reports that 25% of the 241 exoneration won in American courts since 1989 are directly related to false confessions extracted during torturous interrogations. Ignoring the statistics is pointless. There is a dark side revealed in the human spirit when those in authority assert inhumane force over another human being. Torture of any human being is considered an intolerable cruelty and a crime. The Geneva Convention consists of four global treaties outlining the rules of international humanitarian law and defines the ethical treatment of civilians, victims, enemy combatants and prisoners of war (Caplan, 2005) during global conflict. Specifically, it describes in detail those interrogation forms that are considered improper. It was ratified by the U.S. during the Convention on Torture (Hegland, 2006) to reflect the changing characteristics of counterintelligence. In 2009, under intense scrutiny regarding interrogation techniques, President Obama declassified CIA documents from 2004, including the Memorandum of John A. Rizzo to the Department of Justice (2005), which gave detailed descriptions of psychological interrogation techniques used by the CIA and whether or not to consider the acts torture. In 2007, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps revamped the Counterindurgency Field Manual (COIN) to clarify the rules of engagement, Rule of Law, and the overall objective in today’s warfare tactics. Held within the COIN manual are the actual guidelines for those in authority to follow when conducting the security of any nation. The principles contained within the manual are a combined derivative of counterinsurgency employed by Germany, Britain, and France. Today’s military forces are expected to build national infrastructure as well as provide security and defense as warriors. COIN operations require the application of military, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions be synchronized to promote the stability and security needed for effective governance, essential services , and economic development of a nation. The focus of COIN is for the U.S. to establish alliances within an occupied country once aggressors are displaced. The only way to achieve alliance is to assist the ravaged nation in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure so that it may govern and sustain itself. Rebuilding a country’s infrastructure begins by rebuilding vital relationships between the people who are represented on both sides of a conflict. “The moral purpose of combat is to secure peace. The moral purpose of policing is to maintain peace (COIN, 246).” Human nature is dependent upon relationships, therefore, any action that destroys this vital link undermines the ultimate goal of peace. Mistreatment of captured or detained personnel destroys this vital link and fuels the resolve of enemy combatants by giving them more reason to distrust security forces. Combatants use instances of abuse and cruelty as propaganda for their cause, which runs counter to the desired affect of interrogation. Clearly, nothing positive is gained from these instances of mistreatment and torture. The Informed Interrogation Approach – a rapport-building technique within the Army Field Manual - has been proven to be effective in the counter-intelligence community and the war on terror. This new breed of interrogation uses propaganda techniques employed by the enemy in more constructive and less harmful ways. For example, plain talk, propaganda that uses general, positive verbiage to communicate a core emotional tone in the conversation. Plain talk builds report and assists interrogators in obtaining neutral ground with an enemy combatant; causing the detainee to relax and feel less threatened. What appears to be a conversation about family obligations is a counterintelligence technique used to determine the underlining motivations of the enemy. Expert interrogators use this knowledge in manipulative ways to bargain critical information from the detainee. The technique employs good, old fashioned detective work, knowledge of the culture and background of the prisoner, along with the awareness of human nature. In 2008 Matthew Alexander (a pseudo) received clearance through the Department of Defense in to release his book, “How to Break A Terrorist,” detailing his adventures while he was assigned senior interrogator in Baghdad, March–June, 2006. Camaraderie and knowledge of Shia and Sunni culture were Alexander’s psychological tools as he coaxed critical intelligence from key personnel throughout the al Qaeda network. With this type of relationship building came the enlightenment that Iraqi civilians became involved with Sunni al Qaeda out of financial necessity and safety from the Shia Badr Corps, who escalated their terror tactics once Saddam Hussein was stripped of his dictatorship. With humane treatment and a chance to witness the peaceful intentions of security personnel, enemy combatants, previously hell-bent on destroying America and the State of Israel, became instrumental in destroying the psychological propaganda that has held them prisoner in their own country. On May 13, 2009, CIA Operative Ali Soufan (2009), along with Alexander, gave oral and written testimony during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation (2009) regarding their success using the Informed Interrogation Approach. Soufan succeeded in gaining critical intelligence from Abu Zubaydah, (which led to the capture of Jose Pidillia - the “dirty bomber”); and Abu Jandal (once Osama bin Laden’s chief bodyguard), by offering the gentlemen milkshakes and sugar-free cookies. Their testimonies revealed the truth behind the ugliness of war and the political fight they had on their hands to prove the Informed Interrogation Approach yielded more reliable intelligence than the torture counterpart. Soufan testified that the “enhanced interrogation techniques…are ineffective, slow and unreliable,… un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause (Soufan, 2009).” He should know; he was the mastermind who investigated such cases as the East African bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the al Qaeda structure models and communication methods, and the 9/11 plot operatives. |
