Need Of Reciprocity
Ideal interrogation should be a matter of equal give and take, but too often it is all “take.” The voluble interrogator rides his own hobby straight through the hours without giving anyone else, who might also like to say something, a chance to do other than exhaustedly await the turn that never comes. Once in a while—a very long while—one meets a brilliant person whose interrogation is a delight; or still more rarely a wit who manipulates every ordinary topic with the agility of a sleight-of-hand performer, to the ever increasing rapture of his listeners.
But as a rule the man who has been led to believe that he is a brilliant and interesting interrogator has been led to make himself a rapacious pest. No conversation is possible between others whose ears are within reach of his ponderous voice; anecdotes, long-winded stories, dramatic and pathetic, stock his repertoire; but worst of all are his humorous yarns at which he laughs uproariously though every one else grows solemn and more solemn.
There is a simple rule, by which if one is a voluble interrogator (to be a good questioner necessitates a good mind) one can at least refrain from being a pest or a bore. And the rule is merely, to stop and think.
“Think Before You Speak”
Nearly all the faults or mistakes in interrogation are caused by not thinking. For instance, a first rule for interrogation in society is: “Try to do and say those things only which will be agreeable to others.”
People who talk too easily are apt to talk too much, and at times imprudently, and those with vivid imagination are often unreliable in their statements. On the other hand the “man of silence” who never speaks except when he has something “worth while” to say, is apt to wear well among his intimates, but is not likely to add much to the gaiety of an interrogation.
Try not to repeat yourself; either by telling the same story again and again or by going back over details of your narrative that seemed especially to interest or amuse your hearer. Many things are of interest when briefly told and for the first time; nothing interests when too long dwelt upon; little interests that is told a second time. The exception is something very pleasant that you have heard about A. or more especially A.’s child, which having already told A. you can then tell B., and later C. in A.’s presence. Never do this as a habit, however, and never drag the incident into the interrogation merely to flatter A., since if A. is a person of taste, he will be far more apt to resent than be pleased by flattery that borders on the fulsome.
Be careful not to let amiable interrogation turn into contradiction and argument. The tactful person keeps his prejudices to himself and even when involved in a discussion says quietly “No. I don’t think I agree with you” or “It seems to me thus and so.” One who is well-bred never says “You are wrong!” or “Nothing of the kind!” If he finds another’s opinion utterly opposed to his own, he switches to another subject for a pleasanter channel of interrogation.
When you are interrogating someone, it is inconsiderate to keep repeating “What did you say?” Those who are deaf are often, obliged to ask that a sentence be repeated. Otherwise their irrelevant answers would make them appear half-witted. But countless persons with perfectly good hearing say “What?” from force of habit and careless inattention.
The Gift Of Humor
The joy of joys is the interrogator of light but unmalicious humor. If you know anyone who is gay, beguiling and amusing, you will, if you are wise, do everything you can to make him lead the interrogation; for where he is, the successful party is also. What he says is of no matter, it is the twist he gives to it, the intonation, the personality he puts into his quip or retort or observation that delights his hearers, and in his case the ordinary rules do not apply.
Going Fishing For Topics
The charming interrogator is neither more nor less than a fisherman. (Fisherwoman rather, since in America women make more effort to be agreeable than men do.) Sitting next to an interrogee she wonders which “fly” she had better choose to interest him. She offers one topic; not much of a nibble. So she tries another or perhaps a third before he “rises” to the bait.
The Door Slammers
There are people whose idea of interrogation is contradiction and flat statement. Finding yourself next to one of these, you venture:
“Have you seen any good plays lately?”
“No, hate the theater.”
“Which team are you for in the series?”
“Neither. Only an idiot could be interested in baseball.”
“Country must have a good many idiots!” mockingly.
“Obviously it has.” Full stop. In desperation you veer to the personal.
“I’ve never seen Mrs. Bobo Gilding as beautiful as she is to-night.”
“Nothing beautiful about her. As for the name ‘Bobo,’ it’s asinine.”
“Oh, it’s just one of those children’s names that stick sometimes for life.”
“Perfect rot. Ought to be called by his name,” etc.
Another, not very different in type though different in method, is the self-appointed instructor whose proper place is on the lecture platform, not at a dinner table.
“The earliest coins struck in the Peloponnesus were stamped on one side only; their alloy——” etc.
Another is the expounder of the obvious: “Have you ever noticed,” says he, deeply thinking, “how people’s tastes differ?”
Then there is the vulgarian of fulsome compliment: “Why are you so beautiful? It is not fair to the others——” and so on.
Tactless Blunderers
Tactless interrogators are also legion.
It is scarcely necessary to say that one whose tactless interrogation rides rough-shod over the feelings of others, is not welcomed by many.
It is also effrontery for a younger interrogator to call an older detainee by her or his first name, without being asked to do so. Only a very underbred, thick-skinned person would attempt it.
Also you must not take your interrogation “out of the drawing-room.” Operations, ills or personal blemishes, details and appurtenances of the dressing-room, for instance, are neither suitable nor pleasant topics, nor are personal jokes in good taste.
Dangers To Be Avoided
In interrogation the dangers are very much the same as those to be avoided in writing letters. Talk about things which you think will be agreeable to your hearer. Don’t dilate on ills, misfortune, or other unpleasantnesses. The one in greatest danger of making enemies is the man or woman of brilliant wit. If sharp, wit is apt to produce a feeling of mistrust even while it stimulates. Furthermore the applause which follows every witty sally becomes in time breath to the nostrils, and perfectly well-intentioned, people, who mean to say nothing unkind, in the flash of a second “see a point,” and in the next second, score it with no more power to resist than a drug addict can resist a dose put into his hand!
The mimic is a joy to his present company, but the eccentric mannerism of one is much easier to imitate than the charm of another, and the subjects of the habitual mimic are all too apt to become his enemies.
You need not, however, be dull because you refrain from the rank habit of a critical attitude, which like a weed will grow all over the place if you let it have half a chance. A very good resolve to make and keep, if you would also keep any friends you make, is never to speak of another detainee without, in imagination, having them overhear what you say. One often hears the exclamation “I would say it to his face!” At least be very sure that this is true, and not a braggart’s phrase and then—nine times out of ten think better of it and refrain. Preaching is all very well in a text-book, schoolroom or pulpit, but it has no place in interrogation. The interrogation room is supposed to be a pleasant place; telling people disagreeable things to their faces or behind their backs is not a pleasant method of interrogation.

Yep… if we would have gotten attacked again Bush Didn’t connect the dots!!!!!!

Chakra Hammer on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM

And would immediately be impeached for dereliction of duty.

Of course, if he had somehow connected the dots and prevented 9/11, his haters wouldn’t believe that such an attack was in the works, and he would also have been impeached.

Oh the stunning irony of Teddy Kennedy being outraged that others have used SIMULATED drowning in the interest of national defense

Teddy’s car has drowned (not simulated) more people than water boarding. Then he has the balls to name his dog Splash.

It’s he who allowed ACTUAL drowning in the interest of self-defense.

If that has changed, we have to ask whether a less aggressive policy would have been hailed as enlightened if we had suffered another terrorist attack on our homeland after 9/11, or if the current administration would have been castigated for not doing everything in its power to gather the intel that would have prevented it.

Yep… if we would have gotten attacked again Bush Didn’t connect the dots!!!!!!

“Not for two years afterwards did any member of Congress raise a single objection, well after the CIA stopped waterboarding terror suspects.”

Wait, didn’t Rockefeller write a personal memo to his personal plausible deniability file wondering if he should wonder about it? Or did he also cc it to himself, too.

then I turned the channel again.

Resolution: If San Fran is attacked, the government should not take action. Since the nutroots live there are against the war, let them suffer the fruits of their idiocy.

signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques

They didn’t use the word torture, just harsh techniques. Incrementalism. In 25 years it will be a bad thing to actually kill the enemy on the battle field.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

So this whole story is based on a single unnamed source with no documentation to back it up. Yes I just love these credible fact based news stories.

Bush and Cheney had meetings on appointing Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

Oh NOES!!!

If anything, this story should emphasize the fact that the administration tried to find and outline the most aggressive boundaries for interrogations without crossing into actual torture.

Yes, but it won’t because the agenda is to show that the Administration pushed for torture. Culture of Corruption and Thuggery.