
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to interrogate someone? What if that person was an interrogator? Well, now is your chance…
Dianna Skowera, a veteran interrogator of OIF, will soon release her novel/memoir “After Abu Ghraib”. The story tells about the Army’s plan to establish four specialized interrogation battalions after the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. Ms. Skowera was part of the first in this series of experiments.
You can help her show the world what this veil clouded occupation is like with your inquiries. Ms. Skowera will write a technical appendix with her novel for those who choose this profession or want to know more about it. She needs people like you to give the insight of a civilian and the courage to ask the type of questions that people wonder, but either don’t dare to ask or have never had the opportunity to.
There are not many in-depth books on interrogation and none on the type used by the US military today. You can be a part of the first voices to contribute to a book that will be used as a technical reference by future soldiers, historians, and government officials. Your contribution is important to the accountability of future conduct for those in the intelligence field.
Dianna Skowera will include some of these public opinion pieces and questions in her novel. You can reply to this message, leave one at www.dskowera.com, or e-mail the author at sharuqalshems@yahoo.com.
I will tell you what I know. I worked as an interrogator for the US Army. We saw cases of ours taken from us by the CIA. Sometimes they would interrogate them in our facility, which required us to be present-in those instances no abuse or methods you spoke of was seen. I also never saw a case that was returned to us with signs of abuse. Our command placed a lot of emphasis on reporting abuse cases, a lot does not even describe the insistence that they placed on it.
There were times when the questioning that they used did not follow the methods we followed and they were asked to terminate the interrogation because we controlled the facility.
When cases of ours were taken by the agency to another facility, which I have not seen, and the detainee was returned to us, many of my co-workers claimed that their detainee would no longer speak to them because the agents had completely ruined rapport.
Some of the reasons the detainees told us that they would not speak to us anymore was because agents had told them they would not get the things we promised them, i.e. early release, reduced sentence. In my opinion, from the sounds of this, it may have meant the agents used an aggressive line of questioning that was not tactful, i.e. ”if you don’t talk to us, you’re not going to get released early. We’re have more power than the army, don’t trust them.” That is not a quote from anyone, only what I assume was similar to what was said, having listened to what detainees said after they were returned from agency custody.
In fairness, I will say that it is more benificial to remain with the same interrogator. For example, a new interrogator will not know everything the person in question has already said to someone else, something that may have actually helped the case of the person in question.
It is very important for there to be trust between an interrogator and the person who is being questioned. It is more like two people making a negotiation. If I committed a crime, I likely would not want to reveal everything I had done, because I would know which elements of my action would be most incriminating to me. A person in question usually has it in their mind what they are willing to talk about.
Please keep in mind, that my purpose for the book I have written is to erradicate the type of methods you wrote about. I have seen interrogations done and conducted them without physical or emotional harm to persons in question. Many times the person that was questioned felt relief after they had divulged information.
People do things for a reason. If a person steals food, it is likely because he/she was hungry; we do things because circumstances drive us to them and we see the action as the best solution at the time. The people that we call insurgents in the Middle East do the things that they do because they believe strongly in something.
There is a saying, ”you take two steps forward and one step back.” It is important to concentrate on what the steps backwards are so that we can learn from them. Unfortunately, it is often that we take two steps forward and four back.
Because of Abu Ghraib, the unit that I was in was formed, and we abided by Geneva Conventions, just as the people before us should have. Where the oversight was, I don’t know, and it angers me that we could do so well, why others did not. Because of the issue of waterboarding and other methods you spoke of, I only hope for the future that the media’s and public’s outcries and exploitation of it that action will be taken. I do my part in publishing one small memoir that, likely, the people who need to read it most, will not.
To you, I thank you for being offended by those methods, as sadly there are people who are not. Although someone may be considered an enemy, he is still a human being.
When I walked into an interrogation booth in Iraq, I always told myself this, ”I’m just going in here to meet this man and find out who he is. I’m in his country, I’m a guest in his home. No matter what he did, I will try to find a way to help him and to help the people of Iraq.”
Dianna
Local Opinions (8)
Thank you for your reply. First, I cannot imagine what the experience you described must have been like, to endure such pain and then on top of it to made to feel like you were the antagonist after wards.
It’s situations like yours that the public needs to know about, and I do not deny that they still occur, thus why this issue is to important to me.
It has disgusted me many times in the past to see the way that some people interrogate. Everytime I interrogated someone, they always thanked me over and over for ”actually listening” to them and for giving them a ”chance to tell their story”. When I first heard these comments from them I was outraged at the wonder of how many people must not listen to those that they are questioning. If you don’t give the person who you are questioning the majority of the session to speak then you are guiding the conversation, and it likely will end up as what you described.
There were also many times that some evidence led me to believe one thing and after speaking to the person in question, I was convinced otherwise. Whenever I found out that I was wrong, I let the person I was questioning know that I had been wrong. I feel this is very important.
An interrogator should never walk into a room already assuming that someone is quilty. If someone is being interrogated it is usually because we do not know if the person is guilty of something. Interrogations are not to be used to prove someone guilty, but to complete the picture of events and details. Incriminating questions, such as those you were asked, disgust me and why I want to promote this book, because as of now I have only seen my unit conduct interrogations in the way that I have described and I want to erradicate poor practice of interrogation.
The questions asked should be simple, direct, and thus lead to fact finding after an entire conversation. They should not be designed to make someone feel poorly or guilty. This is why I would just ask someone to tell me there story. If they are being truthful, you can tell. If they are not, you can tell. You cannot force someone to lie about what they do not want to, and it is simply wrong, which makes the person interrogating the bigger criminal.
Again, I am sorry for what happened to you and greatly appreciate you speaking about it. I hope that people in this practice will take seriously the consequences of their actions and erase this jaded concept of what interrogation truly is and should be. Best wishes.
Dianna
I will tell you what I know. I worked as an interrogator for the US Army. We saw cases of ours taken from us by the CIA. Sometimes they would interrogate them in our facility, which required us to be present-in those instances no abuse or methods you spoke of was seen. I also never saw a case that was returned to us with signs of abuse. Our command placed a lot of emphasis on reporting abuse cases, a lot does not even describe the insistence that they placed on it.
There were times when the questioning that they used did not follow the methods we followed and they were asked to terminate the interrogation because we controlled the facility.
When cases of ours were taken by the agency to another facility, which I have not seen, and the detainee was returned to us, many of my co-workers claimed that their detainee would no longer speak to them because the agents had completely ruined rapport.
Some of the reasons the detainees told us that they would not speak to us anymore was because agents had told them they would not get the things we promised them, i.e. early release, reduced sentence. In my opinion, from the sounds of this, it may have meant the agents used an aggressive line of questioning that was not tactful, i.e. ”if you don’t talk to us, you’re not going to get released early. We’re have more power than the army, don’t trust them.” That is not a quote from anyone, only what I assume was similar to what was said, having listened to what detainees said after they were returned from agency custody.
In fairness, I will say that it is more benificial to remain with the same interrogator. For example, a new interrogator will not know everything the person in question has already said to someone else, something that may have actually helped the case of the person in question.
It is very important for there to be trust between an interrogator and the person who is being questioned. It is more like two people making a negotiation. If I committed a crime, I likely would not want to reveal everything I had done, because I would know which elements of my action would be most incriminating to me. A person in question usually has it in their mind what they are willing to talk about.
Please keep in mind, that my purpose for the book I have written is to erradicate the type of methods you wrote about. I have seen interrogations done and conducted them without physical or emotional harm to persons in question. Many times the person that was questioned felt relief after they had divulged information.
People do things for a reason. If a person steals food, it is likely because he/she was hungry; we do things because circumstances drive us to them and we see the action as the best solution at the time. The people that we call insurgents in the Middle East do the things that they do because they believe strongly in something.
There is a saying, ”you take two steps forward and one step back.” It is important to concentrate on what the steps backwards are so that we can learn from them. Unfortunately, it is often that we take two steps forward and four back.
Because of Abu Ghraib, the unit that I was in was formed, and we abided by Geneva Conventions, just as the people before us should have. Where the oversight was, I don’t know, and it angers me that we could do so well, why others did not. Because of the issue of waterboarding and other methods you spoke of, I only hope for the future that the media’s and public’s outcries and exploitation of it that action will be taken. I do my part in publishing one small memoir that, likely, the people who need to read it most, will not.
To you, I thank you for being offended by those methods, as sadly there are people who are not. Although someone may be considered an enemy, he is still a human being.
When I walked into an interrogation booth in Iraq, I always told myself this, ”I’m just going in here to meet this man and find out who he is. I’m in his country, I’m a guest in his home. No matter what he did, I will try to find a way to help him and to help the people of Iraq.”
Dianna
Home

Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
RSS 






Thank you for your reply. First, I cannot imagine what the experience you described must have been like, to endure such pain and then on top of it to made to feel like you were the antagonist after wards.
It’s situations like yours that the public needs to know about, and I do not deny that they still occur, thus why this issue is to important to me.
It has disgusted me many times in the past to see the way that some people interrogate. Everytime I interrogated someone, they always thanked me over and over for ”actually listening” to them and for giving them a ”chance to tell their story”. When I first heard these comments from them I was outraged at the wonder of how many people must not listen to those that they are questioning. If you don’t give the person who you are questioning the majority of the session to speak then you are guiding the conversation, and it likely will end up as what you described.
There were also many times that some evidence led me to believe one thing and after speaking to the person in question, I was convinced otherwise. Whenever I found out that I was wrong, I let the person I was questioning know that I had been wrong. I feel this is very important.
An interrogator should never walk into a room already assuming that someone is quilty. If someone is being interrogated it is usually because we do not know if the person is guilty of something. Interrogations are not to be used to prove someone guilty, but to complete the picture of events and details. Incriminating questions, such as those you were asked, disgust me and why I want to promote this book, because as of now I have only seen my unit conduct interrogations in the way that I have described and I want to erradicate poor practice of interrogation.
The questions asked should be simple, direct, and thus lead to fact finding after an entire conversation. They should not be designed to make someone feel poorly or guilty. This is why I would just ask someone to tell me there story. If they are being truthful, you can tell. If they are not, you can tell. You cannot force someone to lie about what they do not want to, and it is simply wrong, which makes the person interrogating the bigger criminal.
Again, I am sorry for what happened to you and greatly appreciate you speaking about it. I hope that people in this practice will take seriously the consequences of their actions and erase this jaded concept of what interrogation truly is and should be. Best wishes.
Dianna