How to Make Terrorists Talk - No Torture - Use Cookies

[leftupnorth]

How to Make Terrorists Talk
By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Monday, Jun. 08, 2009

The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.



Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."

The crucial question going forward is, What does? How does an interrogator break down a hardened terrorist without using violence? TIME spoke with several interrogators who have worked for the U.S. military as well as others who have recently retired from the intelligence services (the CIA and FBI turned down requests for interviews with current staffers). All agreed with Soufan: the best way to get intelligence from even the most recalcitrant subject is to apply the subtle arts of interrogation rather than the blunt instruments of torture. "There is nothing intelligent about torture," says Eric Maddox, an Army staff sergeant whose book Mission: Black List #1 chronicles his interrogations in Iraq that ultimately led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. "If you have to inflict pain, then you've lost control of the situation, the subject and yourself."

More:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

More on Soufan:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html

[BlueJazz]

1. There are 2 types of Interrogation: Educated/Liberal or Redneck/Right-wing.

[Triana]

2. Torture was grossly unnecessary, incredibly stupid, astoundingly dangerous..

and damaging to our national security....just the type of thing we'd expect from a bunch of chickenhawk, chest-pounding, warmongering, vacuum-packed Republicans and their appointees in the FBI, CIA and "justice" department.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Use brownies

Yes.... those kind of brownies....

Get em' all really high, and then they'll start talking. Just keep some halal snacks nearby for when the munchies kick in. Who knows, maybe they'll find Muhammad in their bag of Cheetos. (Someone found Jesus in there last week, so it's always possible)

[leftupnorth]

4. Shameless Kick. Let's get this to the Greatest Page!

[blaze]

5. Happy to K&R

It all seems like common sense to me....

I don't understand (yet, I get it... M$M) how so many people have been convinced that torture is ok and viable.

[knitter4democracy]

6. Ask any mom or elementary school teacher, and you get the same answer.

The good cop routine (without the bad cop) works the best. Actually listen to them, respect their needs, and treat them like human beings worthy of attention and love, and you'll find out all you need to know.

[chill_wind]

7. "Use cookies" seems a bit reductionist. I agree with Triana about the real lessons here

regarding the blunt instruments of torture, vs a more humane one of any kind (that has less to do with cookies than simply a more intelligent one case by case). But I appreciate the true spirit of the post and the information and K & R.

[leftupnorth]

8. It is indeed somewhat reductionist. It was not my intent to trivialize the techniques,

but to pique interest.

:toast:

[chill_wind]

10. I know, and bless you, it worked on me :-)

:toast:

I am so depressed overall that we as a country are still in this dark place about torture and war crimes.
Anything that helps bring us more into the light and the enlightened is a good thing, and that's what your article endeavors to do. Thank you.

[sendero]

9. As the husband of a juvenile diabetic..

... I have to express some skepticism about this article.

First of all, it is a total myth that diabetics cannot eat sugar. I don't even know where it comes from. Diabetics can eat sugar, they just have to take the proper amount of insulin to deal with it.

Secondly, from the standpoint of diabetes, there is very little difference between sugar filled and sugar free cookies. Both have a somewhat equivalent amount of carbohydrates which will require a similar amount of insulin to deal with.

This may be all true but it sure doesn't sound true to me.

[deaniac21]

11. Please don't let facts get in the ay of a good post.

[chill_wind]

12. Ali Soufan (quoted in the article)

has a great deal of credibility in the torture dialogue, from everything I've read about him.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

[nilram]

13. But apparently, that's not what Abu Jandal believed

After all, he was the one not eating the cookies, and who warmed to the sugar-free ones.