Posts Tagged ‘Geneva Convention’

Interview with British Army Interrogator #3
Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Context: Research for Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control
Location: Reading, UK
Date: 2005
Interviewee: British Army Interrogation Royal Intelligence Corps

This army interrogator, a senior NCO from the Intelligence Corps with a number of decades’ experience, is very good on the role of interrogation in war and the importance of maintaining the ‘shock of capture’ . He has some interesting revelations about the US military’s use of white noise – and some straightforwad views regarding journalists who accuse men like him of ‘torturing’ subjects – when in reality they have no idea what war is actually all about.

His views on Northern Ireland (‘It’s not the Irish Republican TEA PARTY, is it?’) are well worth reading. Funnily enough, I put his comments on the harsh interrogation techniques deployed in Belfast in the early 1970s to a former IRA member – who agreed with them entirely. It’s worth noting that both men were appalled by goings-on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. This interviewee’s comments on interrogation there are well worth noting. The interview was conducted in a pub in Reading, UK  in 2005

Download: Download Interview (PDF)

Where were you taught to interrogate?

Every single Intelligence Corps NCO certainly and indeed officer was expected by the time they’d been in the Corps for about 4 or 5 years to have gone through a tactical questioning and prisoner handling course. But we were taught, certainly during the training side, all about interview techniques and extraction of information, bearing in mind that a lot of our work was all to do with investigation – let’s say the loss of a parcel in an office. Or it might be (and I was involved in), in West Germany, interviewing people who came across the border by train or something… The whole business of human intelligence and extraction of information was inherent in the Corps and had been inherent in the Corps for many, many years. It was nothing new. We just carried on where the field security team left off.

Then when we did RA1 as NCOs – class A trade exam, class one, we then did the week’s tactical questioning/prisoner handling. And this was to equip us with skills that would allow us to select a prisoner and how that prisoner could be briefly questioned, or was required for further interrogation further up the line. Every unit should have had a tactical prisoner handler. The whole part of the prisoner handling was to be taught how to handle a prisoner so that – while that prisoner was not mistreated in any way – but was nevertheless handled in a fit state when he was pushed up the line he was still going to be indoctrinated (if that’s the right word) into talking to an interrogator.

Keep him sweet?

Keep him sweet.

So there is a rapid first interrogation – and then if the prisoner seems to have relevant information, he is moved on up the chain?

Yes. It’s important to appreciate that a prisoner of war is a bit like a dead body or a document, a piece of SIGINT or something you pick up, a wrecked vehicle. A prisoner is nothing more than an element of the intelligence process. The prisoner has the same value as a body to a certain extent, as signals intelligence. But there is one critical difference: that the prisoner has been in contact with the enemy most recently. You have to bear in mind that a prisoner is probably the most defensive person on the battlefield. He is being handled by people who don’t speak their language, doesn’t know what’s going to happen to him, doesn’t know when he’s going to see his family again, doesn’t know when he’s going to get his next meal, or his next drink. All he knows is that he is in the hands of the enemy. That’s all he knows. And it is frankly a very upsetting experience. It really is. And that is shown in a thing called The Shock of Capture. When a person is captured, they go through a psychological process of shock. And you will experience shock, perhaps, at school, when somebody said to you at school, ‘Oh, the headmaster wants to see you Monday morning at 9’. And you spend the entire weekend wondering what the headmaster wants to see you about. Your heart will race, your hands will feel clammy. If you’re roaring down the motorway at 90 and you see a blue light in your mirror, and as the police car comes nearer and nearer, you will begin to get the signs of shock. As the car passes, everything will drain away, of course. But the whole idea is to retain that shock of capture in the best way possible. Very, very difficult in different conditions.

Nevertheless, every prisoner will experience that shock because he doesn’t know what is going to happen to him. Life for him is very bleak. It really is. The prisoner himself, if he is trained, will be thinking about a) Escape; and b) ‘If I can’t escape, how am I going to resist?’ So that’s what we were trained to do. We were trained to identify the prisoners, for further interrogation. To maintain the shock of capture, and to decrease the chance of resistance in further interrogation.

Did they teach you about the history of interrogation?

Oh yeah, I remember the training film. We used to watch a training film called Camp 020. Absolutely. It was all there. We used to get handouts on the turning of prisoners. It was all part of our job. The Intelligence Corps is a very special corps. It was all part of our job, to turn people if we could. To use agents and sources. 020, the experiences of the prisoners of Korea and so forth, was all part of the history that we learned.

When did you join?

I transferred in 1970 from the **** Corps. …We had an exercise in Germany against the Danes, and each rounded each other up and up against the wall and so forth. I became interested in the interrogation process.

When the Danes caught you, they used the full white noise treatment?

No. Just tactical questioning. But we were questioned by Brits who I now know to be **** Company. We were given about 8 hours worth or so. Quite an experience.

Not with the noise, though?

No. You wouldn’t get the noise at that stage. It was just a couple of troopers, perhaps the odd officer, in a barn somewhere. As you would expect to be captured. I think we were not allowed to go through the full lot at that stage because we were not what was called at that stage Prone-to-Capture. Every soldier is prone to capture, of course, but there was – aircrew, special forces, navy divers, and a whole raft of other people.

There was a relationship to what happened in Korea, wasn’t there? Were your lecturers Korean veterans?

Yes, of course. And when I was an instructor, we got a sergeant from the Glosters who had been captured in Korea. He had been captured at the Imjin River. He had spent three months denying that he knew anything about a 303 rifle – which was his weapon! Great resilience. Why do you want to tell these Koreans about the 303? We also used to get Americans who had been captured in Vietnam. This was when I was instructing. We were exposed to these people.

The real push in counter-interrogation training came from Korea in the first place, didn’t it? Escape and Evasion?

Yes. It’s a bit more fundamental than that. By then the threat was a communist threat. Resisting the Germans in WWII was – there was no real, there was a programme in WWII on resistance to interrogation. But because it was wartime, not many aircrew went through it. They were told, ‘When you bale out of the aircraft, the only thing you think about is survival. And when you hit the deck, you’re in enemy territory.’ There’s this whole trauma – burning aircraft, or being captured at Dieppe. Very real. Very hard to get it across just how traumatic these experiences can be.

The problem with Korea was that for the first time, Allied/Western forces had fallen into the hands of communists and they had a whole different way of approaching this. Much more against the individuals. The other factor about the army of Korea is that a large number of the men who fought then were left-wing. And so the Koreans and the Chinese would say ‘But of course, you are our allies, aren’t you?’ This was a major dilemma for ordinary men – suddenly to be exposed to this whole ideology. And there was this re-education process. Very hard to get through, and men signed confessions – I don’t blame them. None of these men had ever had this training before. Suddenly these pressures are coming, conditions are very bad.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interrogation - Source Material, Source Material | No Comments »

Interview with US Army Interrogator #1
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Context: Research for Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control
Location: London
Date: TBC
Interviewee: US Army Sergeant / Interrogation Instructor

This interrogator, a young sergeant in the US Army, worked in Afghanistan at the start of the War on Terror. Here he talks about his training and describes some of his experiences at Kandahar and Bagram. This guy is almost the exact opposite of what the general public might expect of an NCO involved in the interrogation business: highly intelligent, clearly well-trained – and with very strong ethical views regarding what is, and is not, acceptable in interrogation.

Download: Download Interview (PDF)

Is interrogation a dark art?

It’s a public perception. I don’t think that it’s a dark art. It was never, all the time that we trained and all the preparation that we had, it was never – we thought that we were part of something really special and cool and out in the open. And because our training manuals were never classified and stuff, we never felt that we were part of something weird.

Not secret-secret, then?

There was a bit of elitism about it. They kept telling you that you were special to be selected for the corps. We then found out that there’s nothing that special about it at all… So, when you’re very young you buy into that.

Ever come across ‘truth drugs’ in your training?

I think that they’ve changed a bit about the instruction. I remember it being much more categoric when I was going through the training as a private. Versus what I remember teaching as a staff sergeant. The training that I got when I was very young, sort of 1990, 17 years old, was – the theme was that we went through the different classes of drugs, we went through what was their official pharmacological classification and we talked about what the effects were on people, but it was always in the context of either: a) This is what our enemies do; or b) They don’t work. This is what was told us, and it was repeated over and over again.

I think that as novice interrogators, educated in films – as we were – people thought that this would be a panacea, you know? I think a lot of us actually thought that we would learn how to give shots. There were rumours in basic training that they would teach us to give sodium pentothal shots by using oranges – you practised giving shots of the truth serum on oranges. That was the first I ever learned of it. Then we had this half-day class, maybe a three hour block of instruction.

Later when I went to instruct, the course had been revised in 1993, the course had been changed and there was a much more in-depth piece about it with practical examples, and they talked more about the American experience using truth serum.

Where?

It was never in a military context, it was always talked about as police investigations or the CIA. It was not talked about in terms of ‘does the army do this?’ And there were actual cases cited. Again the bias was always that it was not something that was applicable, not something that would work. It was taught to us as a kind of awareness thing.

What about sensory deprivation? What were you taught about that?

I have experienced it because I went to train at the Evasion and Escape School at Fort Polk, Louisiana. So I learned about it there. The first time I learned about it was as an instructor because it was a part of a block that was added. I was not taught that as a private but when I went back to teach as a sergeant, they talked about it. They talked about evolution of it – sensory deprivation, like isolation, darkness. Then they went into these funky things like water stasis chambers. It was stuff that we were talking about. Although there was a video, a movie about it that had the look of one of those 1960s nuclear bomb stories. But again it was never in the context of ‘we use it’. It was awareness. It was in the context of ‘you’re an army interrogator and you have 10 approaches. Use them.’

The film you saw featured somebody in a helmet?

No, not like that. It looked like it was a documentary not prepared by the army, it was too high quality for the army. It looked like somebody was in a Jacuzzi with a lid. There was a square-looking thing, much bigger than a bathtub and there were people looking down, because they were up high, on walkways that were around it.

They were looking down on the person in the tank?

It was up high and there was this tank surrounded by these walkways that must have been at their chest level. These platforms with staircases leading to it, and these people with clipboards.

Spooky or funny?

I didn’t find it comedic or spooky. It looked like something that had been done at a university. A research project.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interrogation - Source Material, Source Material | No Comments »

Interview with British Interrogator #2
Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Context: Research for Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control
Location: Kent, UK
Date: 3rd November 2004
Interviewee: Senior British Army interrogator/instructor

A former senior instructor from the Intelligence Corps. It’s rather a rambling interview – I don’t manage to get many questions in (try interrogating and interrogator for yourself sometime!) – but covers many of the right bases, including sensory deprivation, the origins of the use of white noise in interrogation and treatment meted out to the 12 so-called ‘Guinea Pigs’ in Norther Ireland in 1971. Most interesting here is the relationship between ‘Resistance to Interrogation’ and interrogation itself – and how one can bleed over into the other

Download: Download Interview (PDF)

Interrogation is the search for truth. … It can be a fishing expedition, in which case you want to find out what you can find out. But usually interrogation, particularly focussed interrogation – which is against the clock – (which is the most dangerous type to engage in) is done to find out a specific piece on information. …

…In a perfect world, where we’re all full of deep, liberal convictions, we sit down and say ‘Will you tell me about the PRF [Pulse Repetition Frequency] of the radar?’ and he says to you ‘Fuck off’ and you say, ‘Oh dear, do tell us, please, we really want to know!’ Sadly the real world is not like that. It never has been and it never will be.

If you have a terrorist who has planted a plutonium bomb in London, does this individual’s human rights override the rights of the hundred thousand people [who are going to be blown up]? I have no doubt as a human being where my sympathies lie. And therefore I would say that pressure to make the subject to give you the information you require is reasonable. But never forget that the information that the subject is giving you – if you put him under duress, he will tell you what he thinks you want to know to stop the duress. So you have to reach a stage where the individual is conditioned to come up with the answers that you want.

There’s a lot of nonsense talked about interrogation because of the SAS, the prone-to-capture troops, the hard-man role and the resistance-to-interrogation. A long time ago I was responsible for resistance to interrogation, which were certain types of submariners, (very few), a rather larger clutch of aircrew, particularly special forces aircrew, and of course the Special Forces themselves. By Special Forces I include MI5 and MI6 officers who…won’t be treated as nicely by the people who capture them as perhaps The Guardian would like us to treat them. That’s a fact of life. Therefore you have to give these people the chance to withstand the kind of pressures they might get from people who don’t believe in the Geneva Conventions or haven’t heard of the bloody Conventions. So a tradition has grown up, a folk-lore about how interrogation is – about black gloves, black rubber hoses, beating on the soles of the feet.

You can cause a lot of discomfort and some people will talk but interrogation is not about talking. It’s about the search for the truth. So you have to condition the person in such a way that he tells you the truth. That’s a function of his personality, of the time that’s available to you and the constraints under which you work. Most interrogators in my experience – which is limited to Northern Ireland and to training with people, MI5, MI6, the SAS – most people will talk to you if they find you congenial. So all the methods of interrogation are designed to speed up the process so that you can get to the sitting-down chatting bit.

There are 4 main methods. The first one is the hard man: slapping around, brutal treatment, being really horrible, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, buckets of cold water over people, don’t let them sleep, push a wall across Wales. These are all things that we would have done to the SAS under very close control.

Where were you in charge of training like this?

[In the early 1970s]. In those days – post-Compton, we were very clear that we were doing resistance to interrogation training, not interrogating. Although occasionally someone would crack…

What you’re at, with someone who is resisting, all the time, is the assault on the personality. Because we have a social personality… Why are SAS officers the way they are? If you hold up a mirror to the way a man appears, you will see his weaknesses, his perceived weaknesses. The guy who comes across as the hard man, why does he behave like that? You’re going for the nuclear personality. This is where brainwashing becomes interesting. The social personality is what hides the nuclear personality as far as possible. With Greville Wynne, the Soviets found out that he was a very fastidious man. So the Soviets put him in a bottle dungeon where he had to stand up and shit on the floor. When Wynne got back to this country, he was so psychologically damaged that he had to tear up tissue paper and clean his room obsessively in his hotel. He had a horror of being dirty.

All the time you’ve got a psychological attack going on, which is just as damaging as beating the guy with rubber hoses. The aim is to develop the point where the individual wants to tell you because he sees no other way. What usually happens in my experience is that people don’t break and burst into tears and say ‘I’ll tell you everything you want to know. What do you want to know?’ It’s like running into the wall in the marathon. They run out of steam. They’re just so tired, worn down by it all. They’ve got no lies to tell.

[Interrogation subjects in the world of intelligence tend to construct series of cover stories, like the skins of an onion. Interrogators have to] go through these stories, peeling the onion, trying to get to the core. And eventually, people run out of stories.

There are four techniques. There’s a) the hard man; b) The soft man (‘come on old chap, I’m your friend’). C) There’s the stupid interrogator, and d) there is the monotonous interrogator. Monotonous takes time, like wearing down a stone; and the stupid one is the hardest one because you have to be very, very good to be very bad.

Those are the four basics. A good interrogator can switch from one to the other. A good interrogator can also use dislocation of expectations. These four are like piano keys you can mix and match. You can use humiliation and ridicule. Now, we’re not supposed to do that in the West now, because we mustn’t make anyone unhappy. [Is stripping someone naked and ridiculing the size of his penis] humiliation? Of course it is! Is it a reasonable technique? By my judgement, yes. By the standards of wartime, yes. It may not be by the standards of Matrix Chambers…

In the end the guy talks because he wants to.

Traditional interrogation methods will come around again because the pressures of reality will force them to come around and again. What’s happened now because of various civil rights pressures – and also as a result of efforts by people like the IRA because they knew how damaging it was for them. For example, anyone who fell into the hands of the RUC immediately in Northern Ireland was assumed to have been turned, to have been targeted or to have given stuff away. We know that *** ****, the ****, was a member of  big IRA family – if he was not in the IRA, he was the only member of the IRA who wasn’t and it was his job to go round Castlereagh and find out exactly what information IRA volunteers had given so that action could be taken to stop it. So there was a deliberate attempt by terrorist organisation – especially the IRA – to damage the interrogation process.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interrogation - Source Material, Source Material | No Comments »

Interview with British Interrogator #1
Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Context: Research for Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control
Location: London
Date: 19th July 2005
Interviewee: British Intelligence Officer

A senior British ex-military officer, who spent years working on intelligence issues and was trained to interrogate by the Royal Intelligence Corps in the early 1960s. This officer explains the training he received, and some of the techniques used to interrogate.

He also discusses violence and interrogation, sensory deprivation and the difference between resistance to interrogation training and interrogation training itself. His comments on the use of hoods by the British Army in Iraq are particularly noteworthy. All names in this interview – including the units he served with, and where – have been removed.

Download: Download Interview (PDF)

How did you come to be taught to interrogate?

It was 1963, April, May–time. I’d been sent to [the Royal Intelligence Corps’ HQ at] Maresfield. All I was told was: ‘You will go on an interrogation course’.

You didn’t choose this?

No. I was summoned to an office in GCHQ and off we went. And I found out on arrival that I was the only candidate on the course – for 2 weeks. And I was told it was the standard course. The only difference was that I was the only guy there. So I had 100% attention from the instructors and from, very interestingly, the ‘stoolie’, the guy who was the subject for the interrogation. Who was a member of … the Glosters [regiment] and he had been captured – like several hundred of the battalion had been – in Korea, so his experiences were absolutely brilliant for use by the Maresfield centre. Now, at that stage, it was completely new to me. I knew other people who had done the [Russian] interpreter course who had been sent on the interrogation course, but it wasn’t a standard sequence, and none of my colleagues on the Russian interpreter course actually did an interrogation course. So I didn’t know at that stage why I’d been sent.

So I went back to Cheltenham and I found out after a couple of days that I had passed the course. I was summoned into my boss’ office and told I was going to be sent to **** **** for a 6 month posting, and the purpose of my posting would not be told to me. I should take nothing military, nothing associated with the military. On arrival in *** *** I would be given a briefing and I would discover what I would do. I assumed of course my interrogation course was something to do with this. I toddled off to **** ****… where I used my skills. I used my Russian interpreter skills, and also my newly-acquired interrogation skills…

Can you talk about the interrogation course?

Yes, I think this is now – I think it was probably graded ‘restricted’ in 1963 and that’s now 40 years ago. I would particularly like to counter a statement I read in the press a couple of weeks ago when they were talking about the abuse in Iraq that techniques of deprivation and hooding were taught in the army interrogation centre in Chicksands – ie, it’s part of the syllabus. I can say that in 1963, when the whole world was far less sensitive and nervous about physical violence of all sorts, the techniques of interrogation as taught at the then-interrogation centre were entirely what you would call respectable, in other words they covered the methods, the organisation, the personal organisation, the way you run an interrogation session, how to work in a team, what to look for in the subject, of an interrogation. And basically, you’ll be surprised to know – how to behave like a British gentleman and still be a successful interrogator.

For the rest of my life under various circumstances, I’ve been able to apply those various techniques without fear or favour. I would have thought that if we’d had brutality as part of our SOPs in the centre where we’re taught all this in 1963, on a one-person course, I would have gained some inkling of those. I didn’t.

But of course I did when I did a counter-interrogation course two years later in Aden.

The [Aden] Emergency involved people, there were several cases of British forces being caught, tortured and decapitated. I remember a horrid incident at Sana where the heads of the British military that had been captured were cut off and impaled on pikes and displayed to the public on pikes. You were dealing with – as today in Iraq – with medieval attitudes and nobody on the other side adhered to the Geneva Conventions. So officers and NCOs – I was by then the patrol officer of a company of *** [regiment] who were on duty there – officers and NCOs were sent on a counter-interrogation course by a visiting team who briefed us on the techniques used by nations that did not sign up to the Geneva Conventions.

This was an army team?

An army team. And this was by now almost exactly three years later. About February-March 1966. There we were told all about hooding and brutality.

They hadn’t taught you about sensory deprivation and how to apply it to prisoners in your interrogation course?

No. I think this was clear to me: what we were being taught, as I think we knew, were methods which our SAS recruits went through. All regiments supply recruits for the SAS and some pass and some fail. And it is accepted that the SAS selection course, which is – I’m glad to say, very tough indeed – does include the volunteers being put through the techniques, the sorts of techniques that we were taught about at Aden. So within the British forces there is first-hand experience by going on SAS courses, where resistance to interrogation – your resistance, your psychological abilities – is tested.

But the technique that all of us in Aden listened to agape was a method that had been developed allegedly very recently, which was to suspend the prisoner in a tank of liquid gelatine which was at 94.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Naked. With your arms and legs tied and your head encased in a sort of diver’s helmet, through which you were breathing. You were hung into this tank, so all you could hear was the [breathing noise] of your own breath. And in theory you would go bonkers. Because you didn’t know which way was up, you had no sense.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Interrogation - Source Material, Source Material | No Comments »