Interrogating a Terrorist
But what was the general opinion among the populace on future interrogations? Based on my conversation at the katta or naaka (neighborhood hangout spots) while in India, most prefer the piñata treatment. I’ve been guilty of having that opinion not too long ago too. But do such methods work? What prevents the terrorist from giving us wrong information or even the information that he perceives we want to hear just to make the beating stop? How is that useful to our national security interests and more importantly global image considering such torture tactics are considered inhumane even for terrorists? If you argue that such despicable people should be treated in a way they deserve then frankly we lose all moral standing and there exists no difference between them and us only seeking to reinforce the recruitment tactics their higher-ups use to lure misguided youth. And when we end up trying the captured terrorist in a court of law (because that’s what civilized nations do) then there is the danger of excluding any evidence obtained from those torture sessions.
Why do you think George Bush is so reviled by his countrymen although he portends to keeping his countrymen safe ironically by sanctioning the very acts that his enemies are capable of. Nitin is absolutely right when he says, “America’s greatest mistake after 9/11 was Guantanamo Bay. India should not make the same mistake.” India should focus on following the letter (and spirit of) law and try the terrorist in the court with proper legal representation. That is the only way we send a strong message to people like him that regardless of their barbaric methods and outdated thinking, we are still a civilized nation.
On a related note, if you think we still need the information that can be had by the piñata treatment then check out Air Force officer and Guantánamo Bay interrogator Matthew Alexander’s (a pseudonym) book, How to Break a Terrorist. Coming from a man who did the information extraction for a living, his word is more valuable than my opinion:
“The quickest way to get most (but not all) captives talking is to be nice to them. But what does it mean to be “nice” to a subject under interrogation? … It means, ideally, getting to know the subject better than he knows himself and then manipulating him by role-playing, flattering, misleading, and nudging his or her perception of the truth slightly off center. The goal is to turn the subject around so that he begins to see strong logic and even wisdom in acting against his own comrades and cause.”
And there is that danger of having the wrong man because not every day will you catch a terrorist red-handed. Heck, it might be someone from your family or even you. Do you want your brains bashed in for some information that you don’t have?
Related Posts



“None of which included treating him humanely and why should we?” — I’m sure if the terrorist had killed “humanely”, he would be treated as such too. I’m also sure that given the tough mental training these terrorists go through, any sort of humane treatment is not going to get results.
1 year ago replySupremus, I hope you are not advocating treatment of criminals by the nature of their crimes, are you? I am saying we should interrogate them by methods that are most effective and not that those make us feel better or assuage our feelings of resentment. Read the link for the Gitmo interrogator.
1 year ago replyWhen we have the gift of time the leisurely, get inside his head approach is of course the best interrogation method. It enables us to extract the most information which we can use in the long run.
However, we do not always have the luxury of time. Harsh interrogation need not even be truly harsh, if the subject believes that worse things will happen if he does not comply with what we request. Again it’s a psychological drama, played out to get us maximum advantage. Oftentimes the threat of torture is worse than actual torture.
1 year ago replyChris, these guys who are not afraid to die will be afraid of the thought of torture? In fact they are taught to and expect harsh interrogation techniques. These guys are brought up on hate but in fact when the other psychological game of befriending them to extract information is used, they roll over much easily. The ticking time bomb scenario is a convenient argument to justify torture but there is no proof of it having worked in any scenario.
1 year ago reply