Interrogation Effectiveness - Intelligence Interrogations or Mirandized Law Enforcement Interviewsof Terrorism Suspects?

28methods versus military intelligence methods. The facility at Guantanamo is an interesting casesince it contains a unique cross section of ethnicities, terrorist actors, and terroristorganizations not found in the more homogenous detainee populations in Afghanistan and Iraq.It has also been the site of a diverse mix of interrogation methods used by interrogators fromwide-ranging service backgrounds including members of the Army and Navy, law enforcementagencies like the FBI and military units like the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), AirForce Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), and Army Criminal Investigative Division (CID),and intelligence agencies such as the CIA and DIA, and even foreign intelligence services. Areasonable study would require full access to the classified interrogation records of detainees inorder to statistically map the number of interrogations, the approaches used for eachinterrogation, and the results of the interrogations. The value, quality, and usefulness of thecollected intelligence must be objectively assessed using multiple members of the intelligencecommunity to ensure that one view does not dominate the analysis. The length of time that thedetainees have been incarcerated at Guantanamo should have allowed for additionalintelligence collection tasking, intelligence that could be used to corroborate or contradict theoriginal detainee reporting, thus allowing the truthfulness of the detainee to be determinedand the efficacy of the interrogation methods to be evaluated. Without a study of the efficacyof the various interrogation methods employed by the different collection agencies,policymakers do not have the information needed to make informed decisions about the futureof interrogations of terrorism suspects. Without clear guidance, the U.S. response to terroristattacks will be as confused, conflicted, and fractured as the response to the Christmas Dayattack by Abdulmutallab.

29

References

Ackerman, Spencer. "Intel Chief Says New Interrogation Unit Ought To Have QuestionedAbdulmutallab."

The Washington Independent.

January 20, 2010.http://washingtonindependent.com/74299/intel-chief-says-new-interrogation-unit-ought-to-have-questioned-abdulmutallab (accessed November 21, 2010).Associated Press. "Intel Chief: Detroit Bomb Case Mishandled."

MSNBC.

January 20, 2010.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34957530/ns/us_news-airliner_security (accessed November21, 2010).Cassell, Paul G., and Bret S. Hayman. "Police Interrogation In The 1990s: An Empirical Study Of The Effects Of Miranda."

UCLA Law Review

, 1996: 839-931.Center for Constituional Rights.

Guantanamo Bay Habeas Decision Scorecard.

n.d.http://ccrjustice.org/GTMOscorecard (accessed December 5, 2010).Department of Defense.

Executive Summary: Church Report on DOD Interrogation Operations.

Executive Summary, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2005.Department of Defense.

Investigation of Aggressive Interrogation Techniques at GuantanamoBay.

Investigation Findings, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2005.

Guantanamo Justice Center: About Us.

July 30, 2009.http://www.guantanamojusticecentre.com/About%20Us/about%20us.html (accessedDecember 5, 2010).Gudjonsson, Gisli H.

The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions.

Hoboken: Wiley, 2003.Hoffman, Bruce. "American Jihad."

The National Interest.

April 20, 2010.http://nationalinterest.org/article/american-jihad-3441 (accessed June 28, 2010).Intelligence Science Board.

Study on Educing Information: Foundations for the Future.

Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence College, 2006.Intelligence Science Board.

Study on Educing Information: Intelligence Interviewing, TeachingPapers