Alternative Interrogation Method With the

¶ … Alternative Interrogation Method With the strikes on America on September 11th, America changed. No longer were the borders of one of the strongest countries in the world effective barriers against terrorism. Foreign terror had breached these invisible lines and struck at the very heart of the nation. With this breach came an all out war on terror. And, as in any war, interrogation becomes a primary means of information gathering. Because of this, the use of alternative interrogation techniques has risen to the forefront of the American debate.

Interrogation is a methodology employed during the interview of a person, referred to as a "source," to obtain information that the source would not otherwise willingly disclose" ("Interrogation"). In contrast, alternative interrogation techniques go one step further. The end goal of obtaining information is the same, however, the methods are quite different. It is not the building of relationships with sources or the asking of questions, but usually placing the source under some sort of physical and/or mental duress in order to force information from them.

Specifically, the United States has policies against using torture, in the form of extreme physical or mental anguish, in their interrogation techniques; however, some of the alternative strategies have become questionable, with the highly exposed media coverage of the war on terror and terrorism suspects held in prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. It is difficult to determine what involvement President Bush's administration had prior to passing of legislation such as the Military Commissions Act.

President Bush has insisted that the interrogators themselves requested the tough alternative interrogation techniques. Yet, others insist that documents show that instead these coercive techniques were forced on the interrogators (Horton). One thing is certain, the Abu Gharib scandal has caused the general public to question just what techniques are being used during interrogation, and at what point does alternative morph into torture? Abu Gharib prison is, perhaps, one of the most notorious recent military scandals brought to the American public's attention.

With debate over America's presence in Iraq in full force, the accounts of abuse and torture coming from the prison in 2003 were perfect fuel for the fire. An internal investigation conducted in 2004, and later exposure in the American media, found American military personnel abusing prisoners, severely damaging the credibility of America's presence in Iraq, both at home and abroad. Although the Bush administration noted that these acts were isolated acts of individuals, others noted that these actions were condoned by the military as forms of alternative interrogation.

Perhaps the most famous instance of abuse at Abu Gharib is that of Satar Jabar. Jabar was hooded and placed on a box while wires were attached to various parts of his body. He was told that if he fell from the box, he would be electrocuted. The military stated that at no time were these wires live; therefore, Jabar was never in any real physical danger (Scelfo & Nordland).

However, certainly the mental abuse was present and therefore in violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which clearly defines torture as a) ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him.. information or a confession, punishing him for an act he.. has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him (qtd. "United Nations").

The effects of the Abu Gharib scandal, and the other interrogation concerns coming from Guantanamo Bay, led to the recently passed Military Commissions Act, which further clarifies the United States' position on the use of alternative interrogation methods and what is and is not acceptable, including the discontinuance of the use of waterboarding. Again, although the use of alternative interrogation techniques, such as sleep deprivation or long time standing have the same goals of information retrieval, their similarities end there. Standard interrogation does not involve coercive methods.

Prisoners or sources may be mentally intimidated, but they do not suffer physical or mental harm. Even the information garnered can be vastly different. Information received by standard interrogation methods is typically considered more reliable than that of alternative methods, given the coercive nature. When subjected to the physical and mental anguish of alternative interrogation techniques it is possible that prisoners would admit to anything or even make up information simply to end the interrogation process.

Other forms of interrogation that are less cruel than that of washboarding and long-term standing include the use of GABAergic drugs, such as sodium amytal, to increase suggestibility. In addition, there is the use of the Reid technique, which is a nine-step interrogation process that involves factual and behavioral analysis. In the case of the Reid technique, it may be difficult to apply when dealing with suspects from other cultures ("Interrogation"). In addition, the effectiveness, of these techniques, on terrorists is questionable, which is why alternative methods have been employed.

Sullivan discusses the use of alternative interrogation methods and positions himself as equating the use of these practices to torture. Certainly, in the case of Abu Gharib, alternative interrogation.