Talk:Interrogation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xela262, Summer Hamdan, Victoriagonzalez1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): God6181996. Peer reviewers: Mnv14, Rheatata, Jesscampos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deception Section
I added the "about the strength of their case" phrase because the original sentence noted that interrogators are permitted to lie, but they are not permitted to lie about certain things (e.g. that they will let the suspect go home if they confess, that they will lose custody of their children if they do not confess, etc.). I just wanted to make that distinction.Emma Frances (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This section is completely untrue and the person who wrote it is confusing coercion with lying. Read a book there are MANY rules and regulations. Stop the wikibias from uneducated people who base there thoughts on subjects only from mainstream media and not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to Reid Technique?
What is the Reid technique? If it's gonna be mentioned here, there should be a link to a page that describes what it's all about...its all BS anyways —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lommer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2003

NPOV violation
The following appears in a section entitled "Criminal Interrogation":


 * "President Bush order[ed] harsh interrogations of prisoners [...] deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law as well as military law. General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad. Any such crimes, he said, could be prosecuted in other nations' courts, international courts or the International Criminal Court, a body the United States does not formally participate in or recognize."

FWIW, I despise what the George W. Bush administration has done to the United States human rights record, but that's entirely beside the point. I think the above info does belong somewhere, but in a more NPOV way. Is there any page summarizing US human rights controversies of the GWB years? Best might be to link there and move this info there. Cheers, PhilipR 15:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that a subsection of an article on interrogation devoted to the interrogation techniques used in the "war on terror" is entirely appropriate, and could be expanded. I have some notes from the controversial interrogation techniques General Sanchez authorized in September 2003.  I think this would be the best place to use those notes.


 * The only thing I agree with PhilipR about is that the section should be re-titled. I think if the title were changed from "Criminal Interrogation" to "Interrogation techniques used in the 'War on Terror'" then the paragraph in question would be fair and objective.  --  Geo Swan 19:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire thing is a quote from a respected source quoting a respected source about the topic of "is this interrogation criminal". Facts are facts. We have no obligation to whitewash quoted sources. Indeed, we have an obligation NOT TO. Quoted sources do not have to be themselves NPOV. WAS 4.250 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Privatisation of Interrogation
I think this article could use a paragraph discussing the privatisation of interrogation in the U.S. Military: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1104-23.htm

If there are no objections, I'm glad to do it once I can find some time. mennonot 11:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)




 * From what I've read -- and I don't have sources at my fingertips -- my understanding is that after the Cold War was over, the thinking was that we no longer needed people in the field, including interpretors and case officers. On top of that, the 'polically correct' idea was that we should no longer be paying people for information who themselves have checkered pasts. The result was that many good people left the CIA for other jobs. Some became private contractors, either by themselves or for companies they created. After 9/11, there was a new push for CIA people, but years of neglect and poor management cannot be changed in a short period of time. Brian Pearson 02:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Techniques
Shouldn't we include an overview of the names of some techniques (e.g., the Reid technique, "Mutt and Jeff", "Verify Your Identity", etc.)? I'd think that at least giving an overview of what techniques are available and known might be of interest and use on a page like this. Any opinions on this? --Red Heron 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mutt and Jeff, File and dossier, Establish identity, Big fish Small Fish, pride and ego up, pride and ego down, hate of comrades, love of comrades, love of family, love of country, hate of country, repitition, silent, Fear up, Fear down. None of these are listed yet REID is? come on this is just a collection of uneducated bias beliefs right now no facts.

Intro
Interrogation is a methodolog y employed during the interview of a person, referred to as a "source", to obtain information that the source would not otherwise willingly disclose.

I believe that you can be interrogated without being tricked into giving out information you did not want to. When there is a crime, people who are believed to be innocent are questioned (interrogated) to see if they know of anything useful for the case. WordNet --Midnightcomm 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes deception is a helpful tool. Brian Pearson 02:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Link removal
I removed the link to http://tortureprotest.org/multimedia/no_more_torture; it was certainly a biased source, and there don't seem to be any links which present an alternate point of view (although if you want to add some, feel free to add this link back in).

Legal Protection: Miranda warning
Why is the Miranda warning mentioned? Isn't there distinction between capture of enemy combatants from the battlefield of other countries and domestic arrests? I think the miranda part should be taken out unless objective sources indicate that it belongs. Brian Pearson 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no objection, I've removed the section. Brian Pearson 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this removal was a mistake, and the section should be re-instated. --  Geo Swan 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be right, since the word, "interrogation" is a general term. But I would disagree if it is associated with captures of prisoners on the battlefield. I'll put it back. Brian Pearson 15:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After re-reading the article, I still have the perception it is oriented towards prisoners of war. I think the article needs to be edited, somehow, maybe so it can reflect the difference between domestic arrests by FBI, and police and arrests by soldiers. Brian Pearson 15:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comment lower on police interrogations TheHammer24 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reid Technique
In the article, under "different methods of interrogation," there is a link to criticism of the Reid technique. However, I've carefully read the entire article explaining the technique. The criticism mentioned in that link was for interrogation which did not use the Reid technique. Brian Pearson 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Police Interrogations
This page is completely lacking in its discussion of police interrogations. Either a separate page needs to be created, or preferably, the topic needs to be discussed. These differ greatly in goals, motives, techniques, and scope of military interrogations. I was linked to this page from a police wiki page referencing interrogation, and if I came here and could very easily been under the impression that Police waterboard suspected criminals. TheHammer24 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

US centric
I am pretty sure the Spanish inquisition interrogated its victims, as did most likely the Romans, the ancients Egyptians, etc. etc. However the article is only referring to modern US practices. That makes it a highly biased article. Two possible solution, rename (modern US practics of interrogation) or completely rewrite and restructure the article. Without such decision, the value of this article is very limited to almost everyone Arnoutf 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Article title is too broad. (Interrogation)
There are many different sub-categories undere the word "interrogation". This article is far to specific for it's broad title. Perhaps this page should be retitled or be a portal to other, more specific, interrogation pages.

As stated above, there should at least be a differentiation between police interrogations (which is a volumous subject in itself) and other types of interrogations. Huff.jeremy 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Things a soldier can say when interrogated
I remember that there are 3 or 4 things that a soldier can when being interrogated by the enemy, but they do not have to say anything else and it is illegal to try and force any other answer from them. Something like that. Can someone please tell me what the 3 or 4 things are? I remember it was something like: Rank, name, ID number, unit. Is that it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.8.66 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Big Four
As per the Conventions, you are only entitled to give 4 items of information: Name, Rank, Service Number, and Date of Birth. Unit will be something you do not want to give out, as it will give the interrogator information on your activities and therefore, aid his or her interrogation (wich will go against the code of conduct). I hope this helps, Jerry.mills (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Rank Serial Number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.38.252 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

who decides when an interrogation is over? Can a person just refuse to answer questions and demand to leave? If there is no charges involved, would an interrogation be classified as being taken in "for questioning"? These are answers people need to know in a free country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.139.2 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Provisions
I added information regarding the constitutional provisions of confessions and how they ensure proper interrogation techniques. I cited three books: --Leo, Richard A. (2008). Police Interrogation and American Justice. United States of America: First Harvard University Press --Zulawski, David E., Wicklander, Douglas E. (2002). Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation. (2nd Ed.) United States of America: CRC Press --Kanovitz, Jacqueline R. (2010). Interrogations and Confessions. Elisa Roszmann Ebben & Michael C. Braswell (12th Ed.), Constitutional Law (pp. 323-369). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.rivera11 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I'm removing this section because its far to US specific. Why is it the first section after the intro when it has no bearing on most of the world and History? If this info is vital it should be further down and should state which constitutions these provisions apply too.(94.9.235.131 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

"Interrorgist"?
Is this a real word? I do believe it should be "interrogator", since there doesn't seem to be a definition of "interrorgist" anywhere, and this is the first time I've seen that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdockh (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Added npov tag for torture section
The torture section seems to have an exceptionally strong focus on the USA and CIA.86.163.199.91 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interrogation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016054329/http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1134061838.85/1206fbitaping.html to http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1134061838.85/1206fbitaping.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Interrogation: I think the section with the definition of interrogation can be improved. I would have written, "interrogation (also called questioning) is the act of assessing a person's knowledge about a specific event through a series of questions. Interrogations are usually done by law enforcement officers, military personnel, and intelligence agencies with the intention of gathering as much information as possible about the event(s) that took place." I would elaborate further on the techniques that are used in interrogations to introduce the techniques section. I would give an example of ways to build rapport (good cop/bad cop, and maybe 2 others that are going to be mentioned in the techniques section) and the negative techniques there are used.

Techniques: In the Techniques section introduction, there's a sentence about the different methods that are used but the order in which they are presented is not in line with the order of the sentence. I think the sections should be organized, whether it's increasing order of pain or most frequenty used to less frequently used. I would extend this introduction section to include when they use certain techniques. I don't mean to go fully in depth about the topic because that information is going to be in the individual sections but I think this section should be a synopsis of the ones to follow. An interesting section to add, perhaps as a conclusion, would be techniques that are illegal and those that are allowed for the most part.

Suggestibility: I suggest finding citations for this section. There are none listed, but the information is not common knowledge.

Verbal and non-verbal cues: Take a look at the formatting of this section. The size of the title is smaller than the others. I see that it is listed as a subsection, as a reader, it looks like it is a mistake rather than a subsection. I would check if there's other subsections to add to this section or remove the bold type-face. Rearranging the order of the sections would help the flow of this article. The second sentence of line 3 of Verbal and non-verbal cues section starts with, " The paper [4] … " This article/paper needs to be introduced in if you have not mentioned it before in the section.

Reid Technique: This section and the Verbal and non-verbal section go hand-in-hand. Combining these sections or making both subsections of a section would help the flow of this article.

Around the World: The article mentions the interrogation methods used in the UK and the USA in a section but the techniques mentioned before are mainly those used in the US. My advice would be to give a broad overview of the technique in its given section and then in the US mention that its used here in this way. Basically, this is what technique X is in the technique section and this is how the US uses it in the US section.

In summary, the article is good, but there are areas for improvement. One of the strengths of the article is the citations. Mostly everything is cited and the citations are up to date. The biggest opportunity is the order in which the information is presented. The flow of the article would be improved if the technique sections were organized. My suggestion is to reorder the sections of this article, then, read through the article until you find a good flow. Jesscampos (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Update References
In the Techniques heading, under the Torture subheading, the claim that there is debate about interrogation ethics links to a Washington Post article. A more reliable source would be a book about interrogation ethics: The Ethics of Interrogation: Professional Responsibility in an Age of Terror Xela262 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion about the United Kingdom is minimal and a good source for more information and reliable citation would be: Minimum Force Meets Brutality: Detention, Interrogation and Torture in British Counterinsurgency Campaigns Xela262 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Techniques
There are multiple techniques employed in interrogation including deception, torture, increasing suggestibility, and the use of mind-altering drugs.

Suggestibility
A person's suggestibility is how willing they are to accept and act on suggestions by others. Interrogators seek to increase a subject's suggestibility. Methods used to increase suggestibility may include moderate sleep deprivation, exposure to constant white noise, and using GABAergic drugs such as sodium amytal or sodium thiopental. Attempting to increase a subject's suggestibility through these methods may violate local, national or international law concerning the treatment of detainees, and in some areas may be considered torture. Sleep deprivation, exposure to white noise, and the use of drugs may greatly inhibit a detainee's ability to provide truthful and accurate information.

Deception
The importance of allowing the psychopathic interviewee to tell one lie after another and not confront until all of the lies have been presented is essential when the goal is to use the interview to expose the improbable statements made during the interview in future court proceedings.

Pride-and-ego (up or down)
There are two pride-and-ego techniques used in interrogation. One is the pride-and-ego up approach, while the other is the pride-and-ego down approach. The pride-and-ego up approach involves seeking information from a subject through the use of constant flattery and compliments. As the subject is being continuously praised, the interrogator hopes that through speaking of the subject in a positive light, he or she will provide the necessary information. On the contrary, the pride-and-ego-down approach occurs when the interrogator demeans and insults the subject, with the intent of having the subject provide information. The interrogator will verbally/emotionally abuse the subject, hoping that, eventually, the subject will attempt to salvage his or her sense of pride or self-worth.

Mind-altering drugs
In the past, various mind-altering substances have been tried as "truth serums", including sodium pentothal, sodium amytal, and scopolamine. In the context of Project MKUltra, the CIA conducted trials on LSD as a potential truth serum, beginning in the 1950s.

Tactics
Police interrogations in the United States involve the suspect's voluntarily giving information while questioned. Police use several tactics to elicit information from the suspect. Police interrogate a suspect in such a way that the person does not appear to be a suspect. Investigators often state that they need to ask a couple questions to get more information about a crime. Police refer to this process as an "interview," rather than an interrogation,as this tactic allows the suspect to feel less threatened. The suspect is asked to come into the police station in order to place him or her into an unfamiliar setting, which officers can better control, thus preventing the suspect from resisting interrogation. Police often begin by asking questions designer to solicit background information and engage in small talk. As the suspect feels less threatened, he or she may voluntarily respond to additional questions, eventually including those pertaining to the crime.

Maximization and minimization
Police interrogation tactics can be classified into two general categories: maximization and minimization. Maximization techniques involve eliciting information from the suspect by emphasizing potential consequences for refusing to admit guilt, presenting false evidence, or accusing the suspect of having committed the act. Minimization techniques entail minimizing the suspect's role in the crime and the associated consequences of his or her alleged actions, in order to make the suspect more willing to provide damning information.

Reid technique
Police transcripts showed that one interrogator had asked "It [going inside the car and coming to the murder scene] was a mistake, though, wasn't it? Were you high at the time?", with which Lorenzo replied "No!" This shows that Lorenzo was either answering the first question, which bears an incriminating presupposition, or answering the second question and thus refusing he was high at the time. However, if Lorenzo's intent was to answer the first question, which directly asks if going to to the murder scene was a mistake, neither a "no" or "yes" could target the presupposition that Lorenzo was present at the crime scene. Because this piece of information is tucked into the background, either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer would necessitate accepting the proposition that Lorenzo was present at the crime scene.

Maximization and minimization
As a maximization tactic inspired by the Reid technique, presupposition-bearing questions (PBQs) are questions that interrogators may use to indirectly gain from suspects confirmation of incriminating information, through the inadvertent confirmation of background information relevant to the crime,

United Kingdom
British legislation that applies to interrogation activities include:
 * Human Rights Act 1998
 * Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
 * Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
 * Terrorism Act 2006

All police officers are trained in interview techniques during basic training, further training in detailed interviewing or specialist interviewing is received in specialist or advanced courses, such as criminal investigation, fraud investigation or child protection.

Military interrogation takes two forms, Tactical Questioning or Detailed Interviewing. Tactical Questioning is the initial screening of detainees, Detailed Interviewing is the more advanced questioning of subjects.

Training for all personnel engaged in both TQ and DI takes place at the Joint Intelligence Training Group, Chicksands.

Investigations into these techniques resulted in the publication of policy directives that prohibited the use of hooding, stress positions or wall-standing, noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and drink.

During the early stages of Operation Telic in Iraq during 2003 and 2004 some infantry units have been found to have applied these techniques in contravention of standing orders.

The use of torture is explicitly prohibited. However, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have accused officers of the British Intelligence and Security Services of being at least complicit in the extraction of information from subjects under torture by second parties.

Constitutional protections
Although police can use linguistic strategies to elicit confessions from suspects, they do not have unconditional power to intimidate suspects into providing information. A number of protections exist for suspects under interrogation, including the Fifth Amendment, Miranda Rights, and other legal mandates.

[Fifth Amendment passage] For example, upon being asked by the police if one was present at the scene of a crime, one can refuse to respond. However, law enforcement can request that one provide demonstrative evidence through a blood or DNA sample. A warrant is required.

Following the Escobedo v. Illinois ruling, the Supreme Court mandates that a suspect under police interrogation may refuse to respond to questioning until a lawyer is present, which is called invoking one's right to seek counsel. The Supreme Court further elaborated on this mandate following the decision of Edwards v. Arizona by stating that police cannot continue interrogation once the suspect invokes his or her right to counsel, or until he or she voluntarily agrees to continue questioning.

War on Terror
During the War on Terror, torture has never been authorized or permitted for use at Guantanamo Bay detainment camp or any other U.S. Department of Defense detention/internment facility on captives, whether they are enemy prisoners of war, detainees, and unlawful enemy combatants, though there have been people who have reported being tortured at Guantanamo Bay.

Torture, in this context, is a war crime. Specifically, a grave violation of the Law of Land Warfare. War crimes are punishable under U.S. Code as well as the U.S. Code of Military Justice. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Instances of criminal behavior by military, civilian, and contract personnel of the U.S. Department of Defense has happened and has happened with regard to Geneva Category regarding prisoners and detainees. Criminal behavior in this context may range from mishandling to abuse to torture. Military Commanders investigate rigorously any accusation of prisoner mishandling, abuse, or torture. The military continues to vigorously prosecute any such unlawful activity.

Army regulations and policy have always been clear, the torture or coercion of an enemy prisoner of war during interrogation, or in any other circumstance, is not only unlawful but also an unproductive and unreliable method for gaining information. In addition, U.S. Army interrogation procedures continue to stress that all detained or captured persons will be treated as Geneva Category Enemy Prisoners of War until determined otherwise by a duly constituted military tribunal.

Lieutenant General Jack L. Rives (U.S.A.F. Judge Advocate General) advised a U.S. government task force that many of the extreme methods of interrogation would leave service personnel open to legal sanction in the U.S. and foreign countries.

Inquisition
Inquisition refers to the process within Catholic Church which used torture and violence to eliminate heresy. It was started in 12-century France, later known as Medieval Inquisition. It was spread across Europe, resulting in forms such as witch-trials, Spanish Inquisition, and Portuguese Inquisition. Among most places, it is abolished in early 19th century. Several estimations on statistics of inquisition were made based on remaining records.

Resistance training
Resistance training is often a prerequisite for some military personnel since prisoners of war (POWs) routinely undergo interrogation.

"Verschärfte Vernehmung" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Verschärfte Vernehmung. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c)  buidhe  14:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Torture
Sorry, but "Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a rapport with the subject to torture" sounds like "Sexual intercourse may be achieved through consent or rape". Shouldn't we add in the preface the information that according to international declarations, it is illegal to use torture during interrogation? Reprarina (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)