Talk:Interrogation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interrogation is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lommer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2003

[edit] 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." [1]

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)

[edit] 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)

:"The military worked as hard as it could to create a brain drain by moving qualified intelligence people into other jobs, who then quit...

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)