Pshhh... thats not science!

Interrogation is a science, a technique all its own, but a US government funded study done by the Intelligence Science Board claims that there is no science involved as well as brings the question of ethics to the fore. Again. This article is about a study that claims “There is no scientific basis for current interrogation techniques.” That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in about two weeks. Science is the observation of things and learning what works and doesn’t work is it not? So how is interrogation any different from that?

One of the definitions of science is “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That’s how we learn to question people and get the answers we need from them. The prisoner is asked a question, and depending on the response the method of questioning is adjusted to try to elicit a better response. Of course, the issue of ethics makes this infinitely more difficult, as it limits us to mainly verbal communication and no physical, shall we say, incentive for the prisoner to give the information. Anyhow, this is what scientists like to call “experimentation.” Yes, that’s right I said it. Each interrogation is like an experiment because each person will respond to a certain stimulus in a different manner. Interrogators are constantly learning what does and doesn’t work, which is exactly what scientists do. They have an idea (a.k.a. hypothesis, see where I’m going with this?) of a technique or simulation that will get a desired response and they try it. If that doesn’t work then they try again after tweaking their experiment a bit.

Interrogation is a science in itself. It doesn’t exactly follow the general concept of what science is, such as studying biology or physics, but if you think about it interrogation is like a field of psychology. That is exactly what interrogators deal with after all, you know, the mind. In some countries they use some biology too. The US, however, has too many human rights activists to condone torture. Those activists even tried to argue that adjusting the temperature of the interrogation room is unethical. The temperature thing is kind of a dumb idea in the first place though. No derision or racism intended here: today we are dealing with people who live in the desert their whole lives. America is rather more temperate (and, coincidently, is where most of our army’s interrogators come from), and they expect the prisoners to get uncomfortable with a hotter room first? Please. You might think, “In that case why not drop the room temperature?” Sorry, it’s been thought of, and shot down, because we have learned that contrary to heat, (as moronic as it sounds) cold is unethical.

While there may be a number of things that we aren’t allowed to do because of ethical issues, such as physical torture, direct insult and derision, and convincing the prisoner of harm to him and his family, we are allowed a number of practices that have proved to be effective, and less physically and mentally scarring. Psychologists learn about the brain and its functions yes? That is exactly what our interrogators do. They observe their lab rat and how it reacts to different forms of provocation. The experimenter observes the lab rat’s emotions and responds with further provocation or a different form of it in order to get the desired result: the yielding of information. Of course, the desired result isn’t always quite what was expected. Scientists perform experiments all the time and learn things completely unexpected from their efforts. Don’t think interrogators are much different, but their experiments garner information on which the lives of their friends and squad may depend in the immediate future. This is an area of science that has dire consequences if experiments go awry. That’s why the range of methods, while limited by the standards of ethics, is rather extensive.

The techniques interrogators use can be something as simple as a reward for cooperation or removal of a privilege for being a pain in the a- I mean, for being difficult. Instilling fear is generally effective as is making the prisoner feel comfortable or feel a sense of camaraderie with the interrogator. Even the classic “good cop, bad cop” scenario is still effective, as well as the silent treatment for raising the prisoner’s apprehension. A lot of interrogation involves playing with the prisoner’s emotions and asking the right questions when you get to the core of it all. My question is why aren’t more women in these interrogation roles? They’re perfectly suited for it (insert rim-shot).

In all seriousness though, sometimes all this isn’t enough, and they have to be made genuinely afraid. That’s why sometimes interrogators use a technique called “flag-switching” where the prisoner is questioned by someone they believe to be affiliated with a different country (namely one that condones torture). While actually turning a non-talkative person over to countries that believe in torture is unethical and not allowed (although technically it isn’t the Americans doing the torturing, so it is kind of a loophole), that doesn’t mean we haven’t done it before, and it also doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t do it today (we probably just never tell anyone). The flag switching isn’t about really turning someone over to another country for questioning, but making the prisoner think we are going to, which is usually frightening enough to get them talking. The article states that the “belief that torture breaks down a subject's resistance is without technical merit.” I’m sorry what was it that the flag switching proved? Oh that’s right: that the very implication of torture is often enough to get prisoners to talk, let alone the practice of it. This has been observed in numerous cases, and therefore our specialists have theorized (there’s another science-y word for you) that torture, or at least the threat of torture, is an effective interrogation technique.

In science, doctors and professors who are experts in their fields generally lead or design experiments using methods they know will work. They need to do their procedures correctly or else the experiment will either yield incorrect or misleading data or just fail altogether. How are these doctors and professors experts? Experience. That’s what interrogators have to have: experience to know what will work and how to apply it. They understand their field of practice and can effectively negotiate it. They have to be able to tell when they are given misleading or false information and be able to know how to get the right information. Interrogation is indeed a science. In all honesty it should be considered a field of psychology. After all, don’t therapists use a mild form of interrogation to help their client? That’s exactly what they do. Therapists ask their clients a series of questions in order to get answers and information the therapist can use to help them. This study done by the Intelligence Science Board is a load of crap, saying that there is no scientific basis for interrogation. If you believe that, then you must not believe in psychology as a field of science either. Remember, just because an authority figure says something, that doesn’t make it true (that goes for professors too, they don’t know everything, and don’t let them tell you so). Logic and experience are some of the best tools one can use to determine truth, so figure it out for yourself and don’t let others tell you what is and isn’t.