| 
					The GWS, GPW, GC, and US policy expressly
		prohibit acts of violence or intimidation, including
		physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure
		to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation. 
					Such illegal acts are not authorized and will not be
		condoned by the US Army. Acts in violation of these
		prohibitions are criminal acts punishable under the
		UCMJ. If there is doubt as to the legality of a proposed
		form of interrogation not specifically authorized in this
		manual, the advice of the command judge advocate
		should be sought before using the method in question. Experience indicates that the use of prohibited techniques
		is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation
		sources. Use of torture and other illegal
		methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable
		results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and
		can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator
		wants to hear. Revelation of use of torture by US personnel will
		bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces while
		undermining domestic and international support for the
		war effort. It also may place US and allied personnel in
		enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors.
		Conversely, knowing the enemy has abused US and allied
		PWs does not justify using methods of interrogation
		specifically prohibited by the GWS, GPW, or GC, and
		US policy. Examples of physical torture 
		include -- 
			
			
			Electric shock.
			
			Infliction of pain through chemicals or bondage
		(other than legitimate use of restraints to prevent
		escape).
			
			Forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal
		positions for prolonged periods of time.
			
			Food deprivation.
			
			Any form of beating. 
		Examples of mental torture include -- Coercion is defined as actions designed to unlawfully
		induce another to compel an act against one's will. Examples
		of coercion include -- 
			
			
			Threatening or implying physical or mental torture
		to the subject, his family, or others to whom he
		owes loyalty.
			
			Intentionally denying medical assistance or care in
		exchange for the information sought or other
		cooperation.
			
			Threatening or implying that other rights guaranteed
		by the GWS, GPW, or GC will not be
		provided unless cooperation is forthcoming. 
					*** Fear-Up Approach The fear-up approach is the exploitation of a source's
		preexisting fear during the period of capture and interrogation.
		The approach works best with young, inexperienced
		sources, or sources who exhibit a greater than
		normal amount of fear or nervousness. A source's fear
		may be justified or unjustified. For example, a source
		who has committed a war crime may justifiably fear
		prosecution and punishment. By contrast, a source who
		has been indoctrinated by enemy propaganda may unjustifiably
		fear that he will suffer torture or death in our
		hands if captured. This approach has the greatest potential to violate
		the law of war. Great care must be taken to avoid
		threatening or coercing a source which is in violation of
		the GPW, Article 17. It is critical the interrogator distinguish what the
		source fears in order to exploit that fear. The way in
		which the interrogator exploits the source's fear depends on whether the 
		source's fear is justified or unjustified. Fear-Up (Harsh). In this approach, the interrogator
		behaves in an overpowering manner with a loud and
		threatening voice. The interrogator may even feel the
		need to throw objects across the room to heighten the
		source's implanted feelings of fear. Great care must be
		taken when doing this so any actions would not violate
		the prohibition on coercion and threats contained in the GPW, Article 17. This technique is to convince the source he does indeed
		have something to fear; that he has no option but
		to cooperate. A good interrogator will implant in the
		source's mind that the interrogator himself is not the
		object to be feared, but is a possible way out of the trap. Use the confirmation of fear only on sources whose
		fear is justified. During this approach, confirm to the
		source that he does indeed have a legitimate fear. Then
		convince the source that you are the source's best or
		only hope in avoiding or mitigating the object of his
		fear, such as punishment for his crimes. You must take great care to avoid promising actions
		that are not in your power to grant. For example, if the
		source has committed a war crime, inform the source
		that the crime has been reported to the appropriate
		authorities and that action is pending. Next inform the
		source that, if he cooperates and tells the truth, you will
		report that he cooperated and told the truth to the appropriate
		authorities. You may add that you will also
		report his lack of cooperation. You may not promise
		that the charges against him will be dismissed because
		you have no authority to dismiss the charges. Fear-Up (Mild). This approach is better suited to the
		strong, confident type of interrogator; there is generally
		no need to raise the voice or resort to heavy-handed,
		table-banging. For example, capture may be a 
		result of coincidence -- the soldier was caught on the wrong side of
		the border before hostilities actually commenced (he
		was armed, he could be a terrorist) -- or as a result of his
		actions (he surrendered contrary to his military oath
		and is now a traitor to his country, and his forces will
		take care of the disciplinary action). The fear-up (mild) approach must be credible. It
		usually involves some logical incentive. In most cases, a loud voice is not necessary. The actual
		fear is increased by helping the source realize the
		unpleasant consequences the facts may cause and by
		presenting an alternative, which, of course, can be
		brought about by answering some simple questions. The fear-up (harsh) approach is usually a dead end,
		and a wise interrogator may want to keep it in reserve as
		a trump card. After working to increase the source's
		fear, it would be difficult to convince him everything will
		be all right if the approach is not successful. 
					-- FM 
					34-52 INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION -- SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 |